2026-CQ-00161
La.Jun 29, 2026Background
- The certified questions arise from disputes over contingent fee contracts made by MMA Law Firm with Louisiana hurricane-damage claimants and MMA's successor law firms after MMA's representation ended. 1
- Louisiana courts and this Court had previously sanctioned MMA-related conduct, suspended MMA's lead Louisiana attorney, stayed MMA cases, and appointed a special trustee to notify former clients that MMA could not continue representation. 2
- MMA later filed bankruptcy claims seeking attorney fees and costs from successor firms out of settlement proceeds obtained in the underlying cases. 3
- The federal court certified five Louisiana-law questions concerning absolute nullity, fee recovery, recordation, withdrawal, and the O'Rourke adjustment. 4
- The Louisiana Supreme Court emphasized it made no factual findings about MMA's alleged misconduct and answered only questions of Louisiana law. 5
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a successor firm assert absolute nullity? 6 | MMA said only the client could challenge the contract. | Morris Bart said any person may invoke absolute nullity. | Yes, any person, including a successor firm, may raise absolute nullity. 7 |
| Does attorney misconduct make the contingent fee contract absolutely null? 8 | MMA argued misconduct during representation at most caused dissolution. | Morris Bart argued unethical or illegal solicitation makes the contract void. | Misconduct in formation makes the contract absolutely null; misconduct during performance does not. 9 |
| May an attorney recover fees or costs under an absolutely null contract? 10 | MMA sought recovery in contract or quantum meruit. | Morris Bart argued article 2033 bars recovery by a knowing wrongdoer. | No; an attorney who formed the contract through illegal or unethical conduct cannot recover fees or costs. 11 |
| Against whom may a discharged or withdrawing attorney recover fees and costs? 12 | MMA sought recovery from successor firms. | Morris Bart argued recordation or client-only recovery limits the claim. | A discharged attorney may pursue former client and successor firm, but notice is required before disbursement to the successor. 13 |
| Does the Saucier/O'Rourke framework apply to withdrawal and who decides the adjustment? 14 | MMA argued withdrawal or jury allocation defeated recovery or required Louisiana-law jury rules. | Morris Bart argued withdrawal bars recovery and Louisiana law controls jury allocation. | The framework applies to withdrawal, but the judge-or-jury allocation question is governed by federal law and declined. 15 |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., 387 So. 3d 515 (La. 2024) (certified questions are decided on the facts presented by the federal court 16)
- Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Prods., Inc., 373 So. 2d 102 (La. 1978) (establishes allocation of contingent fees after attorney discharge 17)
- O'Rourke v. Cairns, 683 So. 2d 697 (La. 1996) (allocates contingent fees using the nature and gravity of attorney misconduct 18)
- Chittenden v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 788 So. 2d 1140 (La. 2001) (attorney-client relationship and regulation of law practice are within the court's constitutional authority 19)
- Succession of Wallace, 574 So. 2d 348 (La. 1991) (this court has plenary power over all facets of the practice of law 20)
- In re O'Keefe, 877 So. 2d 79 (La. 2004) (condemns paid solicitation and characterizes it as abhorrent and criminal 21)
- Gray v. Atkins, 331 So. 2d 157 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1976) (contracts arising from illegal runner-based solicitation are illegal and void 22)
- Calk v. Highland Constr. & Mfg., Inc., 376 So. 2d 495 (La. 1979) (recordation is unnecessary against competing claimants but intervention is required before disbursement 23)
- Scott v. Kemper Ins. Co., 377 So. 2d 66 (La. 1979) (recordation may be needed to require a defendant to hold settlement funds pending fee determination 24)
- Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221 (U.S. 1963) (federal law governs the right to jury trial in diversity cases 25)
- Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Coop., Inc., 356 U.S. 525 (U.S. 1958) (state rules should not disrupt the federal judge-jury relationship 26)