Did a discharged contingent-fee lawyer violate the rules by offering to accept less on an asserted lien?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A client discharged a lawyer from a contingent-fee matter. The lawyer asserted a lien, then offered the successor lawyer a smaller amount equal to a medical-payment check already received.
The office said the information available did not show a rules violation. It declined to make a factual determination about whether the asserted fee was reasonable in an informal opinion.
Currency note
This 1994 opinion predates Missouri's 2007 amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct. An official reference note identifies July 1, 2007 amendments to Rules 4-1.9 and 4-1.10. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.
Common questions
Q: Did the office find a violation?
A: No, not based on the information available.
Q: Did it decide whether the asserted fee was reasonable?
A: No. It said an informal opinion could not make that factual determination.
Q: What amount did the lawyer offer to accept?
A: A lesser amount equal to a medical-payment check already received.
Background and rules framework
The opinion addressed a discharged contingent-fee lawyer's lien and reduced settlement offer, while reserving the factual fee-reasonableness question. It cited no numbered rule.
See also
- ALABAR Op. 1990-86: Contingent-fee lien and quantum meruit
- RIEAP Op. 89-21: Fee lien after discharge
Source
- Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/940111/
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
QUESTION: Attorney represented a client on a contingency fee case. The client discharged Attorney. Attorney asserted a lien but made an offer to the client´s new attorney that Attorney would accept a lesser amount which was equal to the amount of a medical payment check that had already been received. Has Attorney violated the rules? ANSWER: Not based upon the information available. This office cannot make a factual determination regarding the reasonableness of the fee asserted in the context of an informal opinion.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1994. Ezel checks the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace