Feingold v. Pucello

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
439 Pa. Super. 509, 654 A.2d 1093 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An attorney who fails to secure a written contingency fee agreement in violation of procedural and ethical rules cannot recover fees under a theory of quantum meruit, particularly when the prospective client has rejected both the proposed fee and the attorney's work product.

Facts:

On February 2, 1979, Barry Pucello was involved in a motor vehicle accident.
A co-worker referred Pucello to attorney Allen Feingold, who called Pucello that evening and subsequently arranged a doctor's appointment for him.
Pucello and Feingold had a preliminary discussion about representation, but did not discuss fee arrangements.
Without a signed agreement, Feingold began working on the case by inspecting the accident site, taking photos, obtaining a police report, and securing an admission of liability from the other driver.
Feingold later mailed Pucello a contingency fee agreement proposing a 50/50 split of the recovery after costs.
Pucello, believing the fee was too high, rejected the agreement, hired other counsel, and told Feingold to keep his work product.

Procedural Posture:

Allen Feingold sued Barry Pucello in quantum meruit.
A board of arbitrators heard the case and found unanimously for Pucello.
Feingold (appellant) appealed the arbitrators' decision to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (the trial court).
Following a de novo bench trial, the trial court found for Pucello (appellee), holding that no attorney-client relationship was ever formed.
Feingold (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (the intermediate appellate 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:

Is an attorney who begins work without a written contingency fee agreement entitled to recover fees in quantum meruit after the prospective client rejects the attorney's proposed fee and work product?

Opinions:

Majority - Olszewski, J.

No. An attorney is not entitled to recover fees in quantum meruit after failing to comply with rules requiring a written contingency fee agreement. Feingold's claim is barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands, as he violated both procedural and ethical rules (Pa.R.C.P. 202 and Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5) that mandate written contingency fee agreements. These rules were created precisely to avoid such disputes by ensuring clients are aware of the fee structure before representation is entrenched. Furthermore, Feingold's proposed 50% fee was 'breathtakingly high,' making the failure to present it in writing upfront even more problematic. On the merits of the quantum meruit claim, Pucello received no tangible benefit, as he explicitly rejected Feingold's work product.

Concurring - Beck, J.

No. The attorney is not entitled to recover fees, but on the narrower ground that the facts do not support a claim for unjust enrichment. A claim for quantum meruit requires showing that a defendant was unjustly enriched, which has three elements: a benefit conferred, appreciation of the benefit, and acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances that make it inequitable to retain it without payment. Here, Pucello affirmatively rejected any direct benefit from Feingold’s services by refusing to accept his work file. The alleged indirect benefits—arranging a doctor's appointment and securing an admission of liability—were either not the type of professional service for which payment is expected or were entirely speculative, and thus insufficient to establish that Pucello was unjustly enriched.

Analysis:

This decision strongly affirms the necessity for attorneys to adhere strictly to professional conduct rules regarding written fee agreements. It establishes that a failure to comply can serve as a bar to equitable remedies like quantum meruit, applying the 'unclean hands' doctrine to an attorney's ethical lapse. The ruling deters attorneys from performing work without a clear, written contract and then attempting to claim fees, thereby protecting clients from surprise or exorbitant fee demands. It solidifies the principle that an attorney's ethical obligations are not merely aspirational but are enforceable conditions that can preclude legal recovery.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Feingold v. Pucello (1995)

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