Defrancesch v. Hardin
510 So. 2d 42, 40 Educ. L. Rep. 1318 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When two attorneys jointly undertake to represent a client under a single contingency fee contract without a specific agreement for the division of fees, they are considered joint venturers and must share the fee equally, regardless of the amount of work each contributed.
Facts:
- In October 1978, Willie Vick's stepson, Stephen, was seriously injured when his shotgun accidentally discharged.
- Vick consulted with Fred R. DeFrancesch, an attorney and his law professor, who identified a potential products liability claim against the gun manufacturer.
- DeFrancesch, feeling he lacked the resources to handle the case alone, asked another attorney, A. Edward Hardin, to work on the case with him.
- In November 1978, DeFrancesch, Hardin, and the Vicks all signed a single contingency fee contract retaining both attorneys for a 40% fee.
- The contract made no provision for how the two attorneys would divide the 40% fee between themselves, and they had no separate side agreement.
- Hardin performed the majority of the legal work, including preparing pleadings, conducting discovery, and handling the client file.
- In 1982, the case was resolved with a favorable structured settlement.
- After the settlement, Hardin offered DeFrancesch one-third of the attorneys' fee, but DeFrancesch refused, believing he was entitled to an equal, 50% share.
Procedural Posture:
- Fred R. DeFrancesch filed suit against A. Edward Hardin in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana (a trial court) to recover his portion of an attorney fee.
- Hardin filed a reconventional demand (counterclaim) asking the court to declare the respective rights of the two attorneys to the fee.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of DeFrancesch, ruling that he was entitled to an equal share of the attorneys' fees.
- A. Edward Hardin, as defendant-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. DeFrancesch is the plaintiff-appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When two attorneys jointly represent a client under a single contingency fee contract without an agreement between themselves on how to divide the fee, should the fee be divided equally as a joint venture, or should it be apportioned based on the amount of work each attorney performed (quantum meruit)?
Opinions:
Majority - Grover L. Covington
No. The fee should not be apportioned based on the amount of work performed but must be divided equally. When attorneys enter into a single contract to represent a client without a separate agreement on fee division, they create a joint venture, requiring an equal sharing of the proceeds. The court adopted the trial court's reasoning, which held that the quantum meruit approach from Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc. does not apply because, unlike in Saucier, neither attorney was discharged. Instead, this situation is governed by McCann v. Todd, which establishes that a joint undertaking to represent a client is a 'joint venture' where fees are shared equally, irrespective of the labor or skill contributed by each attorney. The court explicitly declined to analyze the quantity or quality of work done by each lawyer, stating that as professionals, they had ample opportunity to contract for a different fee arrangement if they had so desired.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a clear default rule for fee-sharing arrangements between co-counsel in Louisiana. It establishes that a joint retainer agreement without a specific internal division of fees creates a legal 'joint venture,' mandating an equal split. This precedent incentivizes attorneys to formalize their fee-sharing agreements in writing at the outset of a case if they wish to deviate from a 50/50 split. By refusing to apply a post-hoc quantum meruit analysis, the court promotes certainty and discourages litigation between collaborating attorneys over who contributed more to a successful outcome.
