In Siciliano v. Singh, Case Nos. E052352/E053582 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 5, 2012) (unpublished), one attorney won quantum meruit fees based on a voided contingency fee agreement, with both client and attorney seeking recovery of attorney’s fees and costs (even though, ultimately, attorney did beat out–barely–a CCP § 998 offer once routine costs were included in the damages award). Both sides were denied fees and costs, prompting appeals by each.
Affirmed mainly, but reversed on the denial of a routine costs award to attorney.
The lower court did issue an advisory ruling that, if Civil Code section 1717 applied based on a fees clause in the contingency agreement with client, that client did prevail. However, the lower court determined that quantum meruit was not “on the contract” under section 1717. The appellate court agreed that quantum meruit was an equitable claim, although noting that there was no authority addressing the precise issue of whether quantum meruit was “on the contract” under section 1717. Because it was equitable, it was not “on a contract” so as to entitle client to fees.
However, different deal with respect to denial of costs to attorney. She did prevail, and the routine costs award statutes make it mandatory to award costs to one receiving a net monetary recovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(a)(1), (b).) Also, she did win some routine costs to beat client’s 998 offer on this point.
Finally, attorney was not entitled to fee recovery because the contingency fee agreement was ambiguous and had to construed against the drafter (i.e., the attorney). The fee recovery allowed “under the Agreement” (the voided contingency arrangement) was not broad enough to encompass the quantum meruit claims.