action seeking award of reasonable attorney’s fee wherein judge, as finder of fact, heard testimony of expert concerning usual fee charged in area for subject matter involved
How later courts described this case
- action seeking award of reasonable attorney’s fee wherein judge, as finder of fact, heard testimony of expert concerning usual fee charged in area for subject matter involved
- large fee warranted in part because result obtained by attorney was “almost miraculous” and very rare
- “absence of a valid contingent fee agreement does not prevent an attorney from recovering the fair value of his or her services”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wilkins, J.
(dissenting). I agree with the opinion of the Appeals Court ordering a new trial. Mulhern v. Roach, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 322 (1985).
This case involves no new issue of law. The appellate function is essentially one of assessing a record to determine whether the judge’s findings and conclusions were warranted on the record. The Appeals Court concluded, with firm conviction, that a mistake had been made, id. at 331 , and it ordered a new trial. Any further review in this court simply involves us in second guessing the Appeals Court. Such a case particularly commends itself to the denial of any application for further appellate review.