Hall v. Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., 157 So. 3d 876

In 2013 Mary Hall and Anaya McKinnon, as personal representatives for two estates, sued Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. (ELG) alleging breach of attorney-employment agreements and unjust enrichment for charging extra "administrative" fees on asbestos-settlement proceeds in addition to a 40% contingent fee.
Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, damages, and attorneys' fees, and initially asserted class-action allegations for similarly situated clients.
ELG moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and alternatively for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, attaching the fee agreements and a February 23, 2012 client memorandum announcing the administrative charges.
ELG argued Rule 1.5, Ala. R. Prof. Cond., made excessive-fee complaints a matter for the Alabama State Bar, so a court ruling would be an advisory opinion; plaintiffs maintained their claims were contract-based (breach/unjust enrichment), not disciplinary.
The trial court denied dismissal, then stayed proceedings pending State Bar review, later dismissed the action with prejudice; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction over contract and unjust-enrichment claims challenging ELG's extra administrative charges	Plaintiffs: claims allege breach of the attorney-employment agreement and unjust enrichment; resolution does not require State Bar action	ELG: claims effectively ask court to rule on excessive fees under Rule 1.5, which only State Bar disciplinary bodies can enforce	Court: plaintiffs stated breach-of-contract/unjust-enrichment claims distinct from pure Rule 1.5 enforcement; circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether a declaratory judgment would be an impermissible advisory opinion because the State Bar is not a party	Plaintiffs: no — the suit seeks to enforce private contract rights, not to bind the State Bar	ELG: yes — fee-reasonableness is governed by Rule 1.5 and the Bar, making any judicial ruling advisory	Court: distinguishable from B.W.T.; because resolution does not require adjudication of Rule 1.5 as a disciplinary matter, judgment would not be merely advisory
Whether B.W.T. v. Haynes & Haynes mandates dismissal here	Plaintiffs: B.W.T. is distinguishable because that case’s "crux" was Rule 1.5 enforcement	ELG: B.W.T. controls — State Bar enforcement is exclusive	Court: B.W.T. is distinguishable and does not require dismissal

Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala. 2003) (standard of review for motions dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
B.W.T. v. Haynes & Haynes, P.C., 20 So.3d 815 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (trial court judgment on fee-reasonableness may be advisory if State Bar enforcement is implicated)
Stamps v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 642 So.2d 941 (Ala. 1994) (void judgment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot support appeal)

MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; JUDGMENT DISMISSING COMPLAINT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.