McCann v. Todd
203 La. 631, 14 So. 2d 469, 1943 La. LEXIS 998 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When two or more attorneys jointly undertake to prosecute litigation for a contingent fee without a specific agreement as to the division of the fee, they are considered to be engaged in a joint venture, and in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, they are entitled to share the compensation equally.
Facts:
- Attorneys Robert B. Todd and John J. Finnorn were originally employed to prosecute certain claims on a contingent fee basis, with an initial agreement to share any fees equally.
- Subsequently, attorney Cameron C. McCann was associated with Todd and Finnorn to assist with the legal matters.
- No clear or definite agreement was made among the three attorneys regarding the specific division of contingent fees after McCann joined the effort.
- The various claims were successfully compromised, and Robert B. Todd collected the total contingent fee of $60,279, which consisted of cash, notes, and bonds.
- A dispute arose over the division of the fee; Finnorn and McCann alleged a verbal agreement for a 35% (Finnorn), 30% (McCann), and 35% (Todd) split.
- Todd denied the existence of this verbal agreement and contended that the other attorneys should be compensated on a quantum meruit basis, meaning based on the reasonable value of their services.
Procedural Posture:
- John J. Finnorn and Cameron C. McCann sued Robert B. Todd in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans to recover a share of attorneys' fees.
- The case was referred to a court-appointed commissioner, who concluded the parties were in a joint venture and recommended a division of 33.33% to Finnorn and 30% to McCann.
- The district court judge rejected the commissioner's report, found that a verbal contract existed, and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for 35% (Finnorn) and 30% (McCann) of the fees.
- Robert B. Todd, the defendant, appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In the absence of a specific agreement, are attorneys engaged in a joint venture to prosecute litigation for a contingent fee entitled to share equally in the compensation?
Opinions:
Majority - Ponder, Justice.
Yes. When attorneys jointly undertake to represent a client for a contingent fee without a specific agreement on how to divide the fee, they are considered joint adventurers and are entitled to share the compensation equally. The court found it was doubtful that there was a meeting of the minds to form a verbal contract for a 35-35-30 split. Likewise, the record did not support the defendant's contention that the plaintiffs were merely employees to be paid on a quantum meruit basis. Instead, the court determined that the attorneys were engaged in a joint venture, or a special partnership. Citing established legal principles and case law from other jurisdictions, the court held that the default rule for joint ventures without a contrary agreement is an equal division of profits, regardless of the amount of labor or skill each party contributed. Therefore, the three attorneys were legally entitled to one-third each. However, since McCann only sued for 30%, his recovery was limited to that amount, and the court affirmed a distribution that resulted in a 35% share for Finnorn, 35% for Todd, and 30% for McCann.
Dissenting - Higgins, Justice.
Yes, but the majority misapplied the rule in its final award. The dissenting opinion agrees with the majority's core finding that the attorneys were engaged in a joint venture and, in the absence of a contract, are legally entitled to equal one-third shares. However, the dissent argues that the majority erred by awarding Finnorn 35% of the fee. Under the law, Finnorn was actually due only 33.33%. While McCann was correctly limited to the 30% he prayed for, the court had no legal basis to award the remaining 3.33% to Finnorn simply on an 'equitable basis.' The dissent contends that the court cannot award a plaintiff more than the amount he is legally due, and the extra portion should have been a 'windfall' for the defendant, Todd, as a result of McCann's pleading.
Analysis:
This case establishes a strong default rule for fee division among collaborating attorneys in Louisiana, aligning it with the majority rule in other jurisdictions. It solidifies the principle that when attorneys work together on a contingent fee case without a clear agreement, their relationship is presumed to be a joint venture, entitling each to an equal share, rather than compensation based on the value of their individual work (quantum meruit). This decision underscores the critical importance for attorneys to create explicit, written fee-sharing agreements to avoid disputes and judicial imposition of a default rule. The dissent highlights a tension between applying a legal rule and achieving an equitable outcome within the constraints of party pleadings.
