Lexplug logoLexplug

Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC v. Cole

Supreme Court of Louisiana
2006 WL 860143, 2006 La. LEXIS 1091, 929 So. 2d 1224 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An attorney working under a contingent fee agreement is not entitled to collect a fee based on a settlement offer rejected by the client if the client ultimately obtains no recovery in the matter.


Facts:

  • Connie Daniel Cole hired attorney Bobby Culpepper to contest his mother's will.
  • Cole and Culpepper agreed to a one-third contingent fee based on 'whatever additional property or money' Culpepper could obtain for Cole.
  • Culpepper negotiated a settlement offer for Cole that was worth $21,600.03 more than what the will provided.
  • Culpepper recommended that Cole accept the settlement offer, but Cole refused, believing he was entitled to a larger share as a forced heir.
  • After Culpepper refused to file suit to pursue a larger recovery, Cole terminated the representation.
  • Cole proceeded to challenge the will on his own (in proper person) but was unsuccessful and recovered nothing.

Procedural Posture:

  • The law firm Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC filed a 'Petition on Open Account' against Connie Daniel Cole in Ruston City Court (trial court) to recover its fee.
  • The city court rendered judgment in favor of the law firm, awarding it the fee based on the rejected settlement offer.
  • Cole, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal.
  • The court of appeal affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the law firm (appellee) but amended the judgment to remove an additional award related to the open account statute.
  • Cole, as applicant, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the court of appeal's decision.

Locked

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 an attorney retained on a contingent fee basis entitled to a fee calculated from a settlement offer that the client rejected, when the client subsequently pursues the claim and recovers nothing?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. An attorney is not entitled to a contingent fee based on a rejected settlement offer where the client ultimately makes no recovery. The contingent fee agreement stipulated that the fee was one-third of 'whatever additional property or money' was obtained for the client. Because the client, Cole, recovered nothing, one-third of zero is zero. The court emphasized that the decision to accept or reject a settlement offer belongs exclusively to the client, as stated in Rule 1.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. To allow the attorney to collect a fee based on the rejected offer would improperly penalize the client for exercising his fundamental right to control the litigation.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle of client autonomy in litigation, particularly concerning settlement decisions. It clarifies that a 'contingency' in a fee agreement means an actual recovery, not merely the procurement of an unaccepted offer. This precedent protects clients from being financially coerced into accepting settlements they deem inadequate, as it prevents attorneys from claiming a fee on a potential recovery that never materializes. The ruling reinforces that the risk of no recovery in a contingent fee case rests with the attorney, not the client.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC v. Cole (2006) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC v. Cole