O'ROURKE v. Cairns
683 So. 2d 697, 1996 WL 681395 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an attorney retained on a contingency fee is discharged for cause, the attorney's fee is determined by first apportioning the total fee based on the factors in the Rules of Professional Conduct (the Saucier method), and then reducing the discharged attorney's apportioned share by a percentage amount that reflects the nature and gravity of the cause for dismissal.
Facts:
- Shannon and George O'Rourke hired attorney Roland Belsome under a written contingency fee contract to pursue a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Mark Cairns.
- Belsome conducted initial discovery and successfully obtained a favorable ruling from a medical review panel.
- After Belsome filed a lawsuit, Dr. Cairns filed for bankruptcy, and Belsome obtained relief from the automatic stay, allowing the malpractice suit to proceed.
- George O'Rourke grew dissatisfied with Belsome due to poor communication, misrepresentations about the case, and Belsome's confessed lack of experience in medical malpractice litigation.
- George O'Rourke discharged Belsome as his attorney due to a lack of confidence.
- O'Rourke subsequently hired attorneys Michael Fenasci and Don Gardner, who successfully prosecuted the case and secured a settlement totaling $565,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Roland Belsome intervened in the O'Rourkes' medical malpractice suit to recover his attorney's fees.
- The parties stipulated that the total fee in dispute was $206,000.
- At a hearing in the district court (trial court), the judge found Belsome was discharged for cause and awarded him $25,000 based on a quantum meruit hourly calculation.
- Belsome, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted Belsome's application for certiorari to resolve the issue.
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 a contingency fee case, is an attorney discharged for cause limited to a fee based solely on an hourly rate calculation for quantum meruit recovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kimball
No. In a contingency fee case where an attorney is discharged for cause, quantum meruit recovery is not limited to a simple hourly rate calculation. The proper method is to first determine the total fee available under the highest ethical contingency fee contract the client signed. That fee is then allocated between the discharged and subsequent counsel using the factors from Saucier (now Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct), which consider the work performed, skill involved, and results obtained. Finally, the court must reduce the portion allocated to the discharged counsel by a percentage that reflects the nature and gravity of the cause for dismissal. This approach protects the client from paying more than one contingency fee while properly accounting for the risks of contingency work and penalizing attorney misconduct. Here, Belsome's contribution warranted 40% of the total fee, which was then reduced by 25% due to the nature of the cause for his dismissal (nonfeasance and lack of communication).
Concurring - Chief Justice Calogero
Agrees with the result but disagrees with the methodology. The reduction for dismissal with cause should not be a separate step performed after the Saucier analysis. Instead, the reasons for dismissal should be considered during the Saucier analysis itself, specifically under the factor considering 'the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.' Performing a separate reduction is redundant and provides a 'windfall' to the successor attorney, who did not earn the portion of the fee taken from the discharged attorney.
Dissenting - Justice Victory
Yes. An attorney discharged for cause should be relegated to a reasonable hourly rate for the time actually spent on the case. The majority's approach improperly allows an attorney who breached the contract to reap the benefits of that same contract. Allowing a recovery based on a contingency fee that the attorney failed to perform is illogical and fails to establish a genuine deterrent to the unprofessional conduct that led to the dismissal. The trial court's method of calculating the fee based on a reasonable hourly wage for the 200 hours worked was the correct approach.
Analysis:
This case establishes a new, hybrid standard in Louisiana for calculating fees for attorneys discharged for cause in contingency fee cases. It rejects a simple hourly-rate quantum meruit calculation and instead modifies the Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc. framework. The key innovation is the two-step process: first, apportion the fee based on contribution, and second, apply a percentage reduction to penalize the misconduct leading to dismissal. This decision ensures that a client is never liable for more than one total contingency fee, regardless of whether the discharge was with or without cause, creating a more predictable and equitable system for both clients and attorneys in such disputes.
