Angino v. Jeffrey R. Lessin & Associates
131 A.3d 502
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- In 2007 Zarreii retained Angino & Rovner (Angino) on a contingency basis for a motor-vehicle claim and signed a fee agreement that included a termination clause: if the client fired Angino and obtained new counsel, Angino would be paid out‑of‑pocket expenses plus 20% of any subsequent gross recovery.
- Angino obtained the tortfeasor policy limits ($100,000) and then pursued an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim against Zarreii’s insurer; Angino selected an arbitrator and prepared for arbitration.
- Zarreii terminated Angino in 2010, retained new counsel (Lessin), and the UIM arbitration in 2012 produced an award that, after offsets, yielded $535,650 to Zarreii.
- Angino sued Zarreii for breach of the termination provision, seeking 20% (~$107,130) of the gross arbitration recovery; Zarreii moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing terminated attorneys can recover only in quantum meruit regardless of a contract termination clause.
- The trial court granted Zarreii’s motion and denied Angino’s, holding Pennsylvania law limits discharged attorneys to quantum meruit; Angino appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Angino) | Defendant's Argument (Zarreii) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a termination provision in a contingent fee agreement can be enforced after the client fires counsel and later obtains recovery | The written termination clause is an enforceable contractual term obligating Zarreii to pay 20% of the gross recovery; contract principles control | Under Pennsylvania precedent, when a client discharges counsel and later obtains recovery, the discharged attorney’s remedy is quantum meruit, not enforcement of a termination/penalty clause | Held: The termination clause is unenforceable as written; discharged attorney’s contractual recovery is limited—remedy is quantum meruit |
| Whether Angino pleaded an available quantum meruit claim to support recovery | Angino argued contract enforcement; did not plead quantum meruit in trial court | Zarreii argued only equitable quantum meruit remedy is available and Angino did not plead it | Held: Court observed Angino did not plead quantum meruit; but affirmed denial of contract recovery because termination penalty provision is unenforceable |
| Proper measure of quantum meruit for a discharged contingent‑fee lawyer | Angino contended contributions (selection of arbitrator, preparation) justify more than a simple hours×rate award | Zarreii urged standard quantum meruit (reasonable value) applies and contract percentage cannot be added | Held: Court endorsed quantum meruit as the appropriate equitable remedy and recognized courts may consider factors beyond strict hours×rate (per Mager concurrence) |
| Whether precedent (Hiscott, Fowkes, Mager) requires denying contractual recovery even where a termination clause exists | Angino distinguished Mager and others because its agreement expressly contained a termination clause | Zarreii relied on those cases to argue against contractual enforcement of termination fees | Held: Court followed those precedents and Capek’s teachings to hold that termination percentage provisions operate as penalties and are unenforceable; quantum meruit governs recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Hiscott & Robinson v. King, 626 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 1993) (terminated attorneys limited to quantum meruit where contingency not met)
- Fowkes v. Shoemaker, 661 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 1995) (quantum meruit claims against former client appropriate; procedural limits on suing successor counsel)
- Mager v. Bultena, 797 A.2d 948 (Pa. Super. 2002) (contingency agreements without termination clauses leave discharged counsel only quantum meruit; concurrence describing broader factors for quantum meruit valuation)
- Capek v. Devito, 767 A.2d 1047 (Pa. 2001) (Supreme Court recognized right to pursue contractual termination‑clause recovery subject to unconscionability and ethics review; remanded for further consideration)
- Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, P.C., 95 A.3d 893 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quantum meruit defined as reasonable value of services under implied contract)
- Kenis v. Perini Corp., 682 A.2d 845 (Pa. Super. 1996) (client has absolute right to terminate counsel; liability for services rendered may follow)