I was hired on a contingency fee and the client fired me before the case ended. What can I recover for the work I already did?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney sought advice concerning fee recovery for an attorney retained under a contingency-fee contract who is discharged without cause by the client before the final resolution of the matter.

The panel observed that Rhode Island case law establishes that an attorney may be discharged by the client at any time, with or without cause, and that the proper measure of the discharged attorney's recovery of damages is the reasonable value of the services performed for that client prior to dismissal. The panel cited Lake v. Winfield Fuller Co. and Lisker v. Monti for this principle.

The panel added that Rhode Island case law does not distinguish between contingency-fee contracts and fixed-fee agreements in the context of the proper measure of recovery for an attorney who is discharged, with or without cause, prior to the final resolution of the subject matter of the representation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988. The panel answered by reference to Rhode Island case law on the discharge of attorneys rather than to a specific Rule of Professional Conduct. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007, and case law may have developed since. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current authority before relying on any specific point mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a client fire a lawyer before the case is over?

A: Under the case law the panel cited, yes. A client may discharge an attorney at any time, with or without cause.

Q: What can the discharged lawyer recover?

A: The panel stated the proper measure is the reasonable value of the services the attorney performed for the client before dismissal.

Q: Does a contingency fee change the recovery measure?

A: No. The panel noted Rhode Island case law does not distinguish contingency-fee contracts from fixed-fee agreements for the measure of a discharged attorney's recovery.

Background and rules framework

The opinion does not cite a Rule of Professional Conduct by number; it answers the fee-recovery question by reference to Rhode Island case law on the discharge of attorneys. That case law treats the discharged attorney's remedy as the reasonable value of services rendered (a quantum meruit measure), regardless of whether the fee arrangement was contingent or fixed.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• The opinion cites no Rule of Professional Conduct by number.

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• Lake v. Winfield Fuller Co., 173 A. 119, 54 R.I. 358 (1934): a discharged attorney recovers the reasonable value of services performed.
• Lisker v. Monti (R.I.): cited by the panel for the same measure of recovery. (The scanned citation is not legible; see the linked source for the exact reporter cite.)

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 91-15: Withdrawing From a Nonpaying Client
• RI EAP Op. 95-15: Referral Fee for No Work
• RI EAP Op. 95-18: Scope of a Referral Fee

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2091-22.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.