holding that attorneys had a valid charging hen where they withdrew for good cause after obtaining a settlement offer that the client rejected, and the client later accepted a “nearly identical” offer; stating that “[t]he law creates a lien of an attorney upon the judgment or fund resulting from his sendees ... [, and] where an attorney is justified in refusing to continue in a case, he does not forfeit his hen for services already rendered” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- holding that attorneys had a valid charging hen where they withdrew for good cause after obtaining a settlement offer that the client rejected, and the client later accepted a “nearly identical” offer; stating that “[t]he law creates a lien of an attorney upon the judgment or fund resulting from his sendees ... [, and] where an attorney is justified in refusing to continue in a case, he does not forfeit his hen for services already rendered” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
- holding that attorney employed under contingency fee contract who is wrongfully discharged or who rightfully withdraws is entitled to compensation for reasonable value of his services
- concluding that evidence in the record supported the trial court’s finding that the attorney had good cause to withdraw where the client exhibited a “total failure to cooperate”
- holding that an attorney working under a contingency-fee agreement was entitled only to quantum meruit for work already done when dismissed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
V. J. Brennan, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I concur that the trial judge properly allowed the attorneys to withdraw. I also feel that the trial judge was very thorough in reviewing these claims and therefore was thoroughly familiar with the case. For that reason I see no need to remand, he knew as much about the efforts of counsel and the "quantum meruit” then as he would after another hearing.
I would affirm without remand.