Leon v. Martinez
84 N.Y.2d 83, 638 N.E.2d 511, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney with notice of a client's valid assignment of a portion of future litigation proceeds to a third party may be held liable to the assignee for disbursing the entire recovery to the client in disregard of the assignment.
Facts:
- Wilfredo Martinez was injured in an accident and retained attorney Ira Futterman to represent him in a personal injury action against The Hertz Corporation.
- In consideration for care provided to him after his accident, Martinez asked Futterman to draft an agreement for the benefit of Gina Leon, Xavier Leon, and Maria Macia (plaintiffs).
- Martinez executed the agreement, which stated, 'I give' the plaintiffs specified percentages (5%, 5%, and 15%, respectively) of any recovery he might receive from his lawsuit after fees and expenses.
- The personal injury action against Hertz was settled, and the settlement proceeds were received by Futterman's law firm.
- Futterman and his firm disbursed the entire net proceeds of the settlement to Martinez, paying nothing to the plaintiffs.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (Leon, Leon, and Macia) filed a lawsuit against Wilfredo Martinez and his attorneys (Futterman and his law firm) in the New York Supreme Court (the trial court).
- The defendant attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against them for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the case against the attorneys.
- The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order, reinstating the plaintiffs' complaint against the attorneys.
- The Appellate Division then granted the defendant attorneys leave to appeal its decision to the Court of Appeals (New York'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 a complaint state a valid cause of action against an attorney who, after drafting an agreement in which his client assigned a percentage of a future personal injury settlement to third parties, disbursed the entire settlement proceeds to his client?
Opinions:
Majority - Levine, J.
Yes. The complaint states a valid cause of action because the agreement using the words 'I give' is sufficient to allege the creation of a present assignment of a future interest, and an attorney with notice of such an assignment has a duty to the assignees. The court reasoned that on a motion to dismiss, pleadings must be liberally construed. The phrase 'I give' can signify a present transfer of an interest, not merely a promise to pay in the future, thus creating a valid assignment. Once a valid assignment is made, the assignor (Martinez) is no longer entitled to that portion of the funds, and the attorney's ethical duty under DR 9-102 is to pay the funds to the party entitled to receive them—the assignees (plaintiffs). Therefore, an attorney who disregards a known, valid assignment and pays the funds to the assignor-client can be held liable to the assignee. The court also noted that the facts could potentially support a separate claim for legal malpractice, as an attorney-client relationship may have existed between the plaintiffs and Futterman for the drafting of the agreement.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that an attorney's duty regarding client funds is not absolute to the client but extends to third parties with a valid legal claim to those funds, such as assignees. It serves as a critical warning to attorneys that they cannot blindly follow a client's instructions to disburse funds when they have knowledge of a third-party's vested interest. The case clarifies that specific language, such as 'I give,' can be sufficient to create an enforceable present assignment of future proceeds, triggering direct liability for the attorney who ignores it. This holding impacts how attorneys manage settlement distributions and handle agreements between their clients and third parties, highlighting the risk of liability for disregarding such arrangements.
