Fontenot & Mitchell v. ROZAS, MANUEL, ETC.
1982 La. App. LEXIS 8751, 425 So. 2d 259 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a client hires two or more law firms under a single contract to jointly provide legal representation, and the contract does not specify how the fee is to be divided, the firms are entitled to share the fee equally as entities, not on a per-capita basis according to the number of lawyers in each firm.
Facts:
- Lonis West was seriously injured in a plane crash on April 30, 1977.
- West's brother first hired the firm of Fontenot & Mitchell.
- Shortly thereafter, West's brother also hired the firm of Rozas, Manuel, Fontenot & McGee, and Mitchell agreed to the joint employment.
- Lonis West signed a single 'contract for legal services' retaining both law firms for a 33 1/3% contingency fee.
- Both firms actively participated in the case preparation and settlement negotiations.
- Late in the negotiations, West requested that McGee of the Rozas firm handle direct dealings with the opposing counsel, but he did not discharge the Fontenot & Mitchell firm.
- Mitchell continued to consult with West and take an active part in the case even after the settlement was agreed upon.
- The case settled for $1,505,000, resulting in a total attorney fee of $464,638.68, which the firms could not agree on how to divide.
Procedural Posture:
- The law firm of Fontenot & Mitchell sued the law firm of Rozas, Manuel, Fontenot & McGee in a Louisiana trial court to determine the proper distribution of a legal fee.
- The trial court ruled that the fee should be distributed equally, with 50% going to each firm.
- The defendant firm, Rozas, Manuel, Fontenot & McGee, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
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 legal fee earned from a joint representation by two law firms under a single contract get divided equally between the two firms, or should it be divided per capita among all the individual lawyers of both firms?
Opinions:
Majority - Doucet, Judge
No, the fee should not be divided per capita. When a client hires two law firms under a single contract for joint representation, the fee is to be divided equally between the firms as units. The court's reasoning is that the client's contract was with the two law firms as distinct entities, not with the six individual lawyers comprising them. The court found precedent in McCann v. Todd, which establishes that lawyers undertaking joint representation are entitled to share fees equally. The court distinguished this situation from cases involving a discharged attorney, where a quantum meruit analysis would be appropriate, because neither firm was ever discharged. Similarly, Disciplinary Rule 2-107, which requires fee division in proportion to services performed, was found inapplicable because that rule governs cases where one lawyer associates another, not where the client hires both firms directly.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the default rule for fee division in cases of joint representation initiated by a client. It establishes a strong presumption of a 50/50 split between co-counsel firms unless a different arrangement is explicitly stated in their agreement. This ruling differentiates client-directed joint employment from attorney-initiated associations governed by disciplinary rules, thereby clarifying that the nature of the retention agreement is paramount. For future cases, this incentivizes law firms to proactively negotiate and specify fee-sharing terms in writing to avoid disputes and judicial intervention.
