Mullens v. Hansel-Henderson
65 P.3d 992, 2002 WL 31810506 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney is entitled to recover the reasonable value of their services under the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit when they successfully complete the agreed-upon legal services, even if the underlying contingent fee agreement is unenforceable for not being in writing.
Facts:
- Victoria Hansel-Henderson hired attorney Steven Mullens for a Workers' Compensation claim under a written 20% contingent fee agreement.
- During the representation, Mullens identified a potential Bad Faith claim against Hansel-Henderson's employer.
- Mullens and Hansel-Henderson orally agreed that he would represent her on the Bad Faith claim for a 40% contingent fee.
- This second agreement for the Bad Faith claim was never put into writing.
- Mullens successfully settled both claims for a total of $300,000.
- Hansel-Henderson accepted the settlement funds, from which Mullens retained his fees, and expressed satisfaction with the outcome at the time.
- Two years after the settlement, Hansel-Henderson initiated an action against Mullens to recover all attorney's fees paid for the Bad Faith claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Victoria Hansel-Henderson sued Steven Mullens in the trial court to recover attorney's fees from the Bad Faith settlement.
- The trial court found the oral contingent fee agreement unenforceable but held that Mullens could retain the fees under quantum meruit as they were reasonable for the services performed.
- Hansel-Henderson (appellant) appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that precedent prevented any recovery under quantum meruit because there was no written notice to the client of such a possibility.
- Mullens (petitioner) sought and was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court of Colorado.
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 entitled to recover fees under a theory of quantum meruit for successfully completed legal services when the underlying contingent fee agreement is unenforceable because it was not in writing and lacked a notice provision for such recovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Martinez
Yes. An attorney is entitled to fees under quantum meruit when the agreed upon services are successfully completed but the contingent fee agreement is not in writing. The purpose of the notice requirement in Colorado's rules (Rule 5(d)) is to inform a client of potential liability for fees if the representation is terminated before a recovery is obtained. When an attorney successfully completes the services and secures a recovery, the client already has an expectation to pay from those recovered funds, making the specific written notice for quantum meruit unnecessary. To deny a fee would be inequitable and would unjustly enrich the client who received the benefit of the attorney's successful work. The court distinguished this situation from prior cases like Dudding, limiting their holdings to instances where the attorney-client relationship terminates prematurely.
Dissenting - Justice Kourlis
No. An attorney is not entitled to payment because he failed to comply with the rules governing contingent fees and the client had no notice of a possible quantum meruit claim. The purpose of the rules requiring written agreements is to ensure clients understand all conditions that trigger attorney fees. This purpose remains unchanged whether the attorney secures a recovery or not. Allowing recovery in quantum meruit without prior written notice undermines the rules and the court's precedent in Dudding and Elliott, which hinged on the principle of client notification. The attorney's failure to follow clear procedural safeguards should preclude equitable recovery, regardless of the outcome for the client.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit in the context of unenforceable attorney fee agreements in Colorado. It creates a critical distinction between cases where legal services are successfully completed and those where the attorney-client relationship is terminated prematurely. The court significantly narrowed the applicability of its precedent in Dudding, holding that the strict written notice requirement for quantum meruit recovery applies only when representation ends before the contingency occurs. This ruling protects attorneys who perform successfully under technically deficient oral agreements from clients who later seek to avoid payment, emphasizing the principle of preventing unjust enrichment over strict procedural compliance in cases of successful performance.
