# Ambrose v. the Detroit Edison Co.

> Michigan Court of Appeals · November 12, 1975 · 65 Mich. App. 484

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673815

## Case

- **Full name:** Ambrose v. the Detroit Edison Company
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 12, 1975
- **Citations:** 65 Mich. App. 484; 237 N.W.2d 520; 88 A.L.R. 3d 239; 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 982
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Brennan
- **Judges:** Bronson, Brennan, Holbrook
- **Cited by:** 60 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673815

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673815. Public record. Not legal advice.