Fisher, Byrialsen & Kreizer, PLLC v. Stevens, Hinds & White, P.C.
688 F. App'x 46
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- SHW (Stevens, Hinds & White, P.C.) represented a client (Wise) on an hourly retainer, later replaced by FBK after settlement of a § 1983 action against New York City.
- FBK recovered attorneys’ fees from the settlement; SHW sought a portion of those fees from FBK and from the settlement proceeds.
- SHW asserted entitlement either to a contingent-percentage share (based on its work) or to compensation under quantum meruit after being discharged.
- The district court awarded SHW $237,997.50 (quantum meruit) and denied SHW’s requests for prejudgment interest, post-judgment discovery, and relief under Rule 60(b).
- SHW appealed the fee award, the denials of prejudgment interest and post-judgment discovery, and the Rule 60(b) denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of retainer: hourly vs contingency | SHW argued a contingency or alternative-fee obligation arose (silent contingency or triggered Plan B). | FBK/others argued the retainer unambiguously selected the hourly Plan A. | Court held retainer unambiguous: Plan A (hourly) selected; no contingency fee existed. |
| Entitlement to percentage of contingency fee after discharge | SHW claimed a share of the contingency fee based on proportionate work. | FBK argued SHW was hourly counsel and cannot claim a contingency percentage. | Court held discharged hourly counsel cannot claim a contingency percentage; only counsel with preexisting contingency agreement may do so. |
| Measure of recovery (quantum meruit) | SHW sought compensation reflecting its work on the case (presumably larger share). | FBK and court used SHW’s billing records and retainer to determine reasonable quantum meruit. | Court affirmed district court’s use of billing records and retainer to calculate a $231,212.50 quantum meruit award (part of $237,997.50 award). |
| Prejudgment interest, post-judgment discovery, Rule 60(b) relief | SHW requested prejudgment interest, post-judgment discovery, and relief under Rule 60(b). | FBK opposed these requests as untimely or meritless. | Court affirmed denials: prejudgment interest not timely requested; Rule 60(b) and discovery denials upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 140 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 1998) (federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related attorneys’ fee disputes)
- Cohen v. Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 N.Y.2d 655 (N.Y. 1993) (discharged attorney without cause may elect quantum meruit or contingent-percentage if preexisting contingency agreement exists)
- Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454 (N.Y. 1989) (attorney with prior contingency agreement may claim contingent percentage after discharge)
- Rubens v. Mason, 387 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) (review of contract/retainer interpretation is de novo)
- McDaniel v. County of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2010) (attorney fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)