The predecessor attorney claims 50% of the fee and won't itemize her work. As the successor lawyer, isn't she limited to quantum meruit for the value of her services?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney (Attorney #2) sought an itemization of legal fees from the predecessor attorney (Attorney #1) on the same matter. Attorney #1 would not comply and maintained she was entitled to fifty percent of any fee obtained in the case. The inquiring attorney believed Attorney #1 was entitled to quantum meruit rather than a percentage fee.

The opinion quotes Rule 1.5(e), which permits a division of a fee between lawyers not in the same firm only if the division is in proportion to services performed (or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility), the client is advised of and does not object to all lawyers' participation, and the total fee is reasonable. The opinion concludes the fees should be divided according to quantum meruit -- the fair value of services rendered before the former attorney's termination of representation. The attorneys should try to agree on the reasonable value of services, and if that fails, a court or the Fee Arbitration Unit of the Rhode Island Bar Association may have to make the determination, citing Ethics Advisory Opinions 91-71 and 92-61.

The opinion adds that both attorneys are obligated under Rule 1.15, "Safekeeping Property," to immediately disburse settlement funds to which the client is entitled without delay.

In practice

Under this opinion, the predecessor's compensation is measured by the value of her work up to termination, not a flat percentage, and the dispute between the lawyers is resolved by agreement or, failing that, by a court or the Bar's Fee Arbitration Unit. Separately, the fee dispute does not justify holding up the client's money: Rule 1.15 requires both lawyers to disburse promptly the settlement funds the client is entitled to.

Common questions

Q: Is a discharged predecessor lawyer entitled to a flat percentage of the fee?

A: The opinion concludes the fee should be divided according to quantum meruit -- the fair value of services rendered before termination -- rather than a percentage.

Q: What if the two lawyers cannot agree on the value?

A: The opinion says they should try to agree, and if that fails, a court or the Fee Arbitration Unit of the Rhode Island Bar Association may have to make the determination.

Q: Can the fee dispute delay paying the client?

A: No. The opinion states both attorneys are obligated under Rule 1.15 to immediately disburse settlement funds to which the client is entitled without delay.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) (division of fees between lawyers not in the same firm) and 1.15 (safekeeping property), analogs of the corresponding Model Rules. Rule 1.5(e) conditions a fee division on proportionality to services (or joint-responsibility agreement), client notice without objection, and overall reasonableness; Rule 1.15 requires prompt delivery of funds the client is entitled to receive.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.5 / RI RPC 1.5(e) (division of fees between lawyers not in the same firm)
• MR 1.15 / RI RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property; prompt disbursement)

Other opinions cited:

• RI EAP Opinion 91-71 (fee division where a lawyer is later suspended)
• RI EAP Opinion 92-61 (prior attorney's lien after self-termination divided by quantum meruit)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 92-61: prior attorney's lien after self-termination divided by quantum meruit under 1.5
• RI EAP Opinion 91-71: fee division with a lawyer suspended after the agreement ends at suspension

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%2093-37.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Final
ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion #93-37, Request #371
Issued June 2, 1993

The inquiring attorney, Attorney #2, seeks an itemization of legal fees on a case from the predecessor attorney, Attorney #1 regarding the same matter. Attorney #1 will not comply with this request and maintains that she is entitled to be paid fifty percent of any fee obtained in the case. The inquiring attorney believes that Attorney #1 is entitled to quantum meruit and not a percentage fee.

Rule 1.5(e) entitled "Fees" states that:

A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:

(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;

(2) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and

(3) the total fee is reasonable.

The fees should be divided according to quantum meruit; the fair value of services rendered before the former attorney's termination of representation. Both attorneys should try to reach an agreement on the reasonable value of services prior to the termination and if that fails, then a court or the Fee Arbitration Unit of the Rhode Island Bar Association may have to make the determination. See, Ethics Advisory opinion #91-71 and #92-61.

In addition, both attorneys are under an obligation, pursuant to Rule 1.15 "Safekeeping Property", to immediately disburse settlement funds to which the client is entitled without delay.