Fair and Reasonable Value

In an action brought for unpaid legal fees, the New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department held that the attorney could not recover pursuant to the retainer agreement because that agreement was “susceptible of no interpretation” other than a prohibited contingent fee arrangement in a domestic relations matter. Any recovery must be on a quantum meruit basis:

“If the terms of a retainer agreement are not established, or if aclient discharges an attorney without cause, the attorney may recoveronly in quantum meruit to the extent that the fair and reasonable valueof legal services can be established” In order to make out a claim in quantum meruit, aclaimant must establish (1) the performance of the services in goodfaith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom theyare rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) thereasonable value of the services'”. In support of its motion for summary judgment, theplaintiff established that it performed legal services on thedefendant’s behalf in good faith, and that the defendant accepted theseservices. However, the plaintiff failed, on this motion, to establishthat it expected compensation for its services, at least insofar as thematrimonial matter was concerned, and failed to establish thereasonable value of its services. Accordingly, the Supreme Courtproperly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was forsummary judgment on the second cause of action, seeking recovery inquantum meruit. The court also properly denied that branch of thedefendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing thesecond cause of action.

The court’s decision does not address the ethical (as opposed to contractual) issue raised by the prohibited fee agreement. (Mike Frisch)