Advertisement

May 20, 2013

Venue and value for attorney liens -- McCoy v. Hershewe Law Firm (Mo. App. W.D. Apr. 10, 2012)

In McCoy v. Hershewe Law Firm, the Western District of Missouri determined two issues relating to litigation of attorney liens in a case where an attorney Aaron Smith started a case at the Hershewe Firm, took the case with him when he left, and then added Bartimus Frickleton Robertson & Gorney (BFR&G) as co-counsel before the case settled for $4.7 million.

First, when a law firm intervenes to adjudicate its lien, the firm as an intervenor does not have the power to cause a transfer of venue under Missouri Revised Statute sec. 508.012.

Second, and more significant for our purposes, the appellate court determines that the first firm that handled a matter, the Hershewe Firm, should receive only $40,000 of an attorney fee award of $1.9 million. Of note, the Hershewe Firm's expert testified that its contribution -- primarily taking the case and retaining two experts -- justified an award of 50% of the fee. The opposing expert claimed the Hershewe Firm's work only took about 16 hours, and -- ascribing a rate of $300 per hour -- the firm should receive $4,800 in quantum meruit.

Reviewing the evidence, the trial court estimated the amount and type of work each group of lawyers did, each firm's reputation, and the fact the fee was contingent. The trial court also took into account the Hershewe Firm's testimony that Smith -- who had done the majority of lawyer work for which the Hershewe Firm took credit -- was not competent to litigate the matter.

Reviewing the award, the appellate court found the trial court also necessarily considered the "amount involved" and the "results obtained," and that the services the Hershewe Firm provided were "minimal, but important." On this basis, as well as the amount of additional work required, the appellate court held the award of $40,000 in fees was reasonable.

Of particular note, the appellate court also emphasized that the firms involved did not have any contractual arrangement in place. Thus, McCoy stands as yet another case that should encourage firms to use separation agreements. See my article here: http://bit.ly/AqQMW8

The McCoy case is available at http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=53493

© Copyright 2013 Armstrong Teasdale LLP. All rights reserved

About the Author

Partner

An accomplished litigator, Michael Downey advises law and accounting firms on legal, ethics and risk management issues and defends those firms in a wide range of matters. Issues handled include partner departures and expulsions, client terminations, fee and fee-sharing disputes, conflicts of interest and waivers, privilege and confidentiality issue, and client solicitations and advertising.

Mike has served as an expert witness and consultant on legal ethics issues; as a hearing officer in Missouri lawyer discipline proceedings and as lead counsel on civil litigation and...

314.342.8072

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.