My clients unreasonably refused a settlement I recommended, then fired me and hired new counsel. Can I claim an attorney's lien equal to my contingent percentage of the offers they turned down?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney had represented two clients in a personal-injury action. A settlement was reached with one insurer to the clients' satisfaction, and the attorney received a contingent fee. The attorney then entered settlement negotiations with an additional insurer, which made an offer. The attorney advised the clients to accept, but they refused, dismissed the attorney, and engaged new counsel. The attorney believed he was entitled to an attorney's lien equal to his contingent percentage of the offers the clients refused, on the theory that they unreasonably refused the settlement and discharged him without justification.

The Panel addressed the question through its General Informational Opinion #4 (issued May 23, 1991), which held that the proper measure of recovery for a discharged lawyer is the reasonable value of services performed for the client before discharge. It cited Lake v. Winfield Fuller Co. and Lisker v. Monti for that measure.

The Panel therefore advised the attorney that he could seek to recover an amount based on the reasonable value of the services he performed prior to being discharged, rather than the contingent share of the refused offers.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994 (Opinion 94-1, issued February 23, 1994), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a discharged contingent-fee lawyer claim the contingency share of an offer the client refused?

A: No. The Panel advised that the proper measure of recovery is the reasonable value of services performed before discharge, not the contingent percentage of a refused offer.

Q: What is the measure of a discharged lawyer's recovery in Rhode Island?

A: Quantum meruit: the reasonable value of the services the lawyer performed for the client before being discharged, per General Informational Opinion #4.

Q: Does it matter that the clients allegedly refused the settlement unreasonably?

A: The Panel did not treat that as changing the measure; it advised recovery based on the reasonable value of services performed prior to discharge.

Background and rules framework

The inquiry concerned the fee a discharged lawyer may recover, not a numbered Rule of Professional Conduct. The Panel resolved it through its own General Informational Opinion #4 and Rhode Island case law, which set the measure of a discharged lawyer's recovery at the reasonable value of services performed before discharge (quantum meruit).

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• RI EAP General Informational Opinion #4 (Issued May 23, 1991): a discharged lawyer's recovery is the reasonable value of services performed before discharge

Cases:

• Lake v. Winfield Fuller Co., 54 R.I. 358, cited for the measure of a discharged lawyer's recovery
• Lisker v. Monti, 74 R.I. 310, cited for the same measure

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 91-22: a discharged attorney recovers the reasonable value of services
• RI EAP Opinion 89-21: a one-third-of-gross fee lien on discharge is invalid

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%2094-01.pdf

Original opinion text

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

(0646)
FINAL

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #94-1 REQUEST #448
Issued February 23, 1994

The inquiring attorney represented two clients in a personal injury action. Settlement was made with the Insurance Company for a third party defendant to the satisfaction of the clients and a contingent fee was received by the attorney. The attorney then entered into settlement negotiations with an additional Insurance Company. An offer of settlement was made. The inquiring attorney advised the clients to accept the offer. The clients refused, dismissed the inquiring attorney and engaged new counsel. The inquiring attorney believes he/she is entitled to claim an attorney's lien in an amount equal to his/her contingent percentage of the offers refused by the clients inasmuch as he/she believes that the clients unreasonably refused to accept the settlement offer and discharged the inquiring attorney without justification.

The issue posed by this inquiry is addressed by General Informational Opinion #4 (Issued May 23, 1991). The Panel opined in that Opinion that the proper measure of recovery of damages by a discharged lawyer is the reasonable value of services performed for that client prior to discharge, citing Lake v. Winfield Fuller Co., 54 R.I. 358 (1938); Lisker v. Monti, 74 R.I. 310 (1948).

The inquiring attorney is therefore advised that he/she may seek to recover an amount based on the reasonable value of services he/she performed prior to being discharged by the clients.