MAX SUTHERLAND v. ROBERT HAMMERS, JR.
A25A0404
Ga. Ct. App.May 22, 2025Background
- Max Sutherland hired attorneys Hammers and Mays under a contingency fee agreement to represent him in a personal injury lawsuit after slipping and falling at a Whole Foods.
- After three years of litigation and settlement negotiations, Sutherland's attorneys urged him to accept a $2 million settlement, warning of litigation risk; Sutherland refused.
- Communication between Sutherland and his attorneys broke down, especially regarding settlement strategy and risk assessment.
- The attorneys withdrew with Sutherland’s consent and filed an attorney fee lien claiming fees and costs based on quantum meruit.
- Sutherland retained new counsel and ultimately accepted a settlement offer slightly higher (by about 11%) than what the former attorneys had negotiated.
- The trial court awarded the former attorneys a reduced fee based on the value of their services, and Sutherland appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Sutherland's Argument | Former Counsel's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withdrawal was supported by "reasonable cause" | Attorneys withdrew voluntarily without good reason | Communication and trust broke down, making representation unworkable | Withdrawal supported by reasonable cause due to relationship breakdown |
| Whether breach of fiduciary duty blocked fee recovery | Former Counsel breached duties by pressuring for settlement | Sutherland was informed, withdrawal was consensual, and timing minimized disruption | No fiduciary breach; withdrawal justified |
| Admissibility of reconstructed billing records | Hearsay; insufficient foundation for reconstructed records | Records based on business documents and personal supervision | Reconstruction admissible; within trial court's discretion |
| Quantum meruit fee recovery was appropriate | Attorneys not entitled due to voluntary withdrawal | Work benefitted client and contingency frustrated by breakdown | Fee recovery under quantum meruit proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolson v. Sistrunk, 332 Ga. App. 324 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015) (review of trial court's factual findings—deferential standard)
- Ellerin & Assocs. v. Brawley, 263 Ga. App. 860 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (right to quantum meruit recovery if contingency is frustrated by client's actions)
- Sosebee v. McCrimmon, 228 Ga. App. 705 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997) (quantum meruit available when client gives reasonable cause to withdraw)
- Lewis v. Smith, 274 Ga. App. 528 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (quantum meruit measured by benefit to client)