Osborne v. Vulcan Foundry, Inc.
699 So. 2d 492, 1997 WL 560061 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When apportioning a contingency fee between a discharged attorney and a successor attorney, courts must first determine each attorney's share based on the services rendered under Rule 1.5(a). If the first attorney was discharged for cause, their apportioned share is then reduced by a percentage that reflects the nature and gravity of the cause for dismissal.
Facts:
- In late 1986, Thomas J. Osborne Jr. retained attorney S. Michael Cashio for a personal injury claim arising from an on-the-job injury.
- Cashio represented Osborne for over seven years, filing the lawsuit, taking the depositions of twenty-three fact witnesses, and preparing the case for trial.
- During the representation, Osborne and his wife, whom Cashio also represented for a related loss of consortium claim, initiated divorce proceedings.
- Osborne expressed discomfort with Cashio representing both him and his estranged wife, but Cashio insisted he could handle the dual representation, causing Osborne significant stress.
- In January 1994, Osborne discharged Cashio due to the conflict issue and retained attorney Robert J. Caluda.
- Caluda took over the case, hired several new expert witnesses, and continued trial preparations.
- In June 1995, Caluda settled Osborne's case for $810,000, generating a $324,000 contingency fee to be divided between the two attorneys.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas J. Osborne Jr. filed a personal injury lawsuit in a Louisiana trial court.
- After Osborne discharged his initial attorney, S. Michael Cashio, Cashio intervened in the lawsuit to protect his financial interest in the attorney's fee against the successor attorney, Robert J. Caluda.
- The underlying personal injury suit was settled, creating a contingency fee of $324,000.
- The trial court held a trial on Cashio's intervention to apportion the fee.
- The trial court found that Cashio was discharged for cause and awarded him $75,000, with the remainder of the fee awarded to Caluda.
- Cashio, as intervenor-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth 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:
Did the trial court commit manifest error in apportioning a contingency fee by awarding a discharged attorney only 23% of the total fee without first determining the value of his services and then applying a separate, reasonable reduction for his for-cause dismissal?
Opinions:
Majority - Armstrong, Judge
Yes, the trial court committed manifest error. The proper method for apportioning a fee when an attorney is discharged for cause is a two-step process: first, the court must allocate the fee based on the services rendered by each attorney according to the factors in Rule 1.5(a), as established in Saucier. Second, after determining that initial share, the court must reduce the discharged attorney's portion by a percentage that reflects the gravity of the cause for dismissal, as established in O'Rourke. Here, the court found that Cashio performed services roughly equal to Caluda's, warranting an even 50/50 split of the fee ($161,500 each) before considering the dismissal. While affirming the trial court's finding that Osborne had just cause to discharge Cashio for causing unnecessary stress, the court held that the cause was not grave enough to justify the trial court's massive reduction. The court concluded a 10% reduction to Cashio's share was appropriate, resulting in an award of $145,350 for Cashio, with the 10% penalty ($16,150) being added to Caluda's share.
Concurring - Murray, Judge
Concurs in the result.
Analysis:
This decision provides critical guidance on applying the framework from Saucier and O'Rourke for fee disputes involving attorneys discharged for cause. It clarifies that a 'for cause' dismissal does not give the trial court carte blanche to arbitrarily reduce the discharged attorney's fee. The court establishes that the analysis must be bifurcated: a quantitative assessment of work performed must occur before a qualitative penalty for the misconduct is applied. This ensures that an attorney who performs substantial work on a case receives fair compensation for that work, with a subsequent reduction that is proportional to the severity of the cause for dismissal, rather than a punitive forfeiture of the entire fee.
