Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v. Glantz
428 N.E.2d 387, 444 N.Y.S.2d 55, 53 N.Y.2d 553 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney may not maintain a cause of action for fraud against a former client for allegedly inducing the attorney to enter into a retainer agreement. Public policy grants a client the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time, with or without cause, limiting the discharged attorney's remedy to quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered.
Facts:
- In 1972, New York City condemned a parcel of land owned by HGV Associates and operated as an amusement park by MHG Enterprises, Inc.
- In June 1976, Glantz, an executive for the respondent companies, signed a retainer agreement with the appellant attorneys.
- The agreement provided that the attorneys would first seek a temporary stay of eviction and would then represent the companies in the larger condemnation proceeding.
- The attorneys explicitly stated they would not work on the stay application unless they were also retained for the subsequent condemnation proceeding, and Glantz agreed to arrange for their substitution as attorneys of record.
- After the attorneys' application for a stay was denied, Glantz informed them they would not be substituted as counsel in the condemnation proceeding.
- Glantz then formally discharged the attorneys in writing.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant attorneys commenced an action in a New York trial court against the respondent former clients for fraud, breach of contract, and the reasonable value of services.
- The trial court dismissed the breach of contract claim but, after a trial, a jury found for the attorneys on the fraud claim, awarding $310,000 in damages.
- The clients appealed to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division modified the judgment by dismissing the cause of action for fraud as a matter of law.
- The attorneys then appealed the dismissal of their fraud claim to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
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 an attorney have a valid cause of action for fraud against a former client who allegedly misrepresented their intent to perform under a retainer agreement at the time of its execution?
Opinions:
Majority - Wachtler, J.
No. An attorney cannot maintain a cause of action for fraud against a former client based on a misrepresentation of intent to perform under a retainer agreement, as this would violate the strong public policy allowing a client to discharge their attorney at any time, for any reason. The unique attorney-client relationship is founded on trust, and to protect this, clients have an absolute right, implied in every retainer agreement, to terminate representation at will. Allowing a fraud claim would inhibit the free exercise of this right. Furthermore, an essential element of fraud—reliance—cannot be established as a matter of law, as an attorney cannot reasonably rely on a client's promise of continued representation given the client's unfettered right to discharge them. The proper and sole remedy for an attorney discharged without cause is to recover the reasonable value of services rendered in quantum meruit, which prevents unjust enrichment without chilling a client's right to terminate.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes that a client's absolute right to discharge their attorney supersedes the attorney's ability to pursue a tort claim for fraudulent inducement related to the retainer agreement. It clarifies that the public policy protecting a client's autonomy in their legal representation is paramount, even in the face of alleged bad faith by the client at the contract's inception. The ruling insulates clients from liability for damages beyond quantum meruit for exercising their right to terminate, thereby reinforcing the at-will nature of the attorney-client relationship in New York. This precedent significantly limits the remedies available to attorneys who believe they were deceived into taking on a case, placing the risk of a client's change of heart or initial misrepresentation squarely on the attorney.
