Cardenas v. Ramsey County
1982 Minn. LEXIS 1662, 322 N.W.2d 191, 31 A.L.R. 4th 89 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a contingent fee agreement entitles an attorney to a percentage of the 'total amount recovered' and the case concludes with a structured settlement, the term 'recovered' is construed to mean 'received.' Therefore, the attorney is entitled to their contracted percentage of each payment only as the client receives it, unless there is an explicit agreement to the contrary.
Facts:
- Richard Cardenas hired attorney David O’Connor for a personal injury claim.
- Cardenas and O’Connor entered into a contingent fee agreement under which O'Connor would receive 'one-third (⅛) of the total amount recovered'.
- The possibility of a structured settlement was not discussed or contemplated when the fee agreement was signed.
- O'Connor negotiated a structured settlement for Cardenas, which included an immediate 'front money' payment of $45,000 and deferred payments totaling $110,800 over ten years.
- During settlement talks, Cardenas indicated his need for immediate cash from any settlement.
- Cardenas testified that when he asked how fees would be paid from a settlement over time, O'Connor replied they would 'work that out'.
- After the settlement was reached, a dispute arose as to whether O'Connor's entire fee, calculated on the settlement's present value, should be paid immediately from the $45,000 front money.
Procedural Posture:
- Attorney David O'Connor brought a motion in the district court (trial court) to determine the amount and timing of his fees from a settlement secured for his client, Richard Cardenas.
- The district court ruled in favor of O'Connor, ordering the immediate payment of his entire fee, calculated on the present value of the settlement, from the initial lump-sum payment.
- Richard Cardenas, as appellant, appealed the district court's order to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
- David O'Connor is the respondent in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contingent fee agreement entitling an attorney to 'one-third of the total amount recovered' permit the attorney to collect their entire fee, based on the present value of a structured settlement, from the initial lump-sum payment when the agreement does not explicitly address the timing of payment in such a scenario?
Opinions:
Majority - Otis, Justice
No. A contingent fee agreement entitling an attorney to a percentage of the 'total amount recovered' does not permit the attorney to take their entire fee from the initial payment of a structured settlement unless that arrangement is explicitly agreed upon by the client. The term 'recovered' in such an agreement becomes ambiguous in the context of a structured settlement. Given the fiduciary relationship between an attorney and client, this ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the client. The court bases this decision on the attorney's professional and ethical obligation (under EC 2-19) to ensure the client fully understands the fee arrangement, especially in novel situations like structured settlements. Because O'Connor failed to obtain Cardenas's clear agreement to pay the entire fee from the front money, the contract must be interpreted to fulfill the client's reasonable expectation: that the attorney's fee would be paid in proportion to the payments received by the client.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial default rule for contingent fee agreements in the context of increasingly common structured settlements. It places the burden squarely on the attorney to be explicit and transparent about fee collection from such settlements, protecting clients from having their much-needed initial payments consumed by legal fees. The ruling reinforces the high fiduciary duty owed by attorneys to their clients, requiring that any ambiguity in a fee agreement be construed in the client's favor. In practice, this compels attorneys to either amend their standard retainer agreements to address structured settlements or to obtain clear, recorded consent from clients on how fees will be paid if a settlement is not a single lump sum.
Unlock the full brief for Cardenas v. Ramsey County