The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department rejected an attack on legal fees

Nonparty respondent Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (BIR) submitted proof that it entered into a retainer agreement with plaintiff and sent her regular invoices to which she did not object during the course of the firm’s year-long engagement (see Bartning v Bartning, 16 AD3d 249, 250 [1st Dept 2005]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, her subsequent counsel’s vague and noncommittal statement in court questioning the propriety of BIR’s bills was insufficient to constitute timely objection to BIR’s account stated claim (see id. LePatner & Assoc., LLP v Horowitz, 81 AD3d 472 [1st Dept 2011]).

Plaintiff’s argument that she need not pay BIR because she discharged the firm “for cause” is similarly unavailing (see generally Brooks v Lewin, 48 AD3d 289, 291 [1st Dept 2008], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 11 NY3d 826 [2008]). Plaintiff’s references to BIR’s misconduct consist largely of a post hoc complaint that the firm pressured her into retaining forensic accountants Cipolla & Co, LLC, and incurred unnecessary legal fees. The record, however, shows that plaintiff — together with her father, a business executive, and a family friend who is an attorney actively encouraged BIR to pursue an aggressive litigation strategy, and that she, her father and the family friend were generally satisfied with the firm’s representation. Among other things, BIR prosecuted a successful motion for interim fees that resulted in an award of $3.5 million, which this Court affirmed, finding that it was not “excessive or duplicative” given the complexity of the financial issues (Trafelet v Trafelet, 162 AD3d 518, 518-519 [1st Dept 2018]). In these circumstances, BIR did not forfeit its right to a charging lien on its account stated (see Klein v Eubank, 87 NY2d 459, 462 [1996]; Delaj v Jameson, 51 AD3d 450, 451 [1st Dept 2008], lv dismissed 11 NY3d 816 [2008]).

(Mike Frisch)