Breeden v. Lybrand

Louisiana Court of Appeal
2006 La. App. LEXIS 931, 2006 WL 1047135, 927 So.2d 451 (2006)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

An attorney-client relationship and liability for fees can be established through the doctrine of apparent agency when a client's conduct—such as paying fees and allowing representation—creates a reasonable belief that the attorney is authorized to act on their behalf, even in the absence of a written contract.

Facts:

The Lybrands sold a property to TCB, Inc., a corporation owned by their daughter.
A foreclosure action was filed against TCB, Inc., prompting Steve Bressler (the Lybrands' son-in-law) to hire attorney Patrick Breeden to defend the property.
TCB, Inc. sold the property back to the Lybrands, who were subsequently added as defendants in the foreclosure lawsuit.
The Lybrands discussed the litigation frequently with Breeden.
Over the course of two years, the Lybrands paid Breeden over $8,000 through sixteen separate checks from their joint checking account.
Breeden continued to represent the Lybrands through various appellate matters regarding the property.
Breeden sent a written demand letter to the Lybrands for the remaining unpaid legal fees.
The Lybrands failed to pay the outstanding balance, leading to the current dispute.

Procedural Posture:

Breeden filed suit against the Lybrands in the District Court to recover unpaid attorney's fees.
The District Court held a trial on the merits.
The District Court ruled in favor of Breeden, finding the Lybrands owed the underlying legal fees.
The Lybrands appealed the judgment of liability to the Court of Appeal.
Breeden cross-appealed the trial court's failure to award additional fees under the Open Account Law.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a property owner liable for attorney's fees based on apparent agency when they did not personally hire the attorney but subsequently communicated with him, paid him directly, and allowed him to defend their property interests in court?

Opinions:

Majority - Roland L. Belsome

Yes, the Lybrands are liable for the fees because their conduct created an apparent agency relationship that bound them to pay for the legal services. The court reasoned that although there was no written contract, the Lybrands created a reasonable belief in Breeden that he represented them. This belief was substantiated by three key factors: the Lybrands were named defendants in the suit Breeden was defending, they accepted the benefits of his legal work, and most importantly, they paid him directly via sixteen checks from their personal account. The court also held that Breeden was entitled to additional fees under the Open Account Law because he properly sent a demand letter and waited the statutory thirty days before suing. The court relied on the principle that agency can be implied by conduct and does not require express intent.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the equitable doctrine of 'apparent agency' within the context of legal representation. It serves as a warning to clients that they cannot accept the benefits of legal counsel and pay partial fees, only to later claim no contract existed to avoid the remaining balance. Legally, it lowers the bar for attorneys to prove a contractual relationship exists in the absence of a written retainer, provided there is clear evidence of the client's conduct (like payment history) endorsing the representation. Additionally, the ruling clarifies that attorneys representing themselves in fee disputes are entitled to statutory attorney's fees under Louisiana's Open Account Law, ensuring lawyers are not penalized for litigating their own unpaid bills.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Breeden v. Lybrand (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"