Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, PC
95 A.3d 893
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Eazor Estate retained Meyer Darragh under a contingent-fee agreement; the firm claimed two-thirds of fees generated by the Eazor litigation.
- Weiler, a Meyer Darragh attorney, resigned in 2007 but had agreed with Mayer Darragh that the firm would receive two-thirds of fees; Weiler later joined Malone Middleman.
- Weiler removed the Eazor file before leaving; Malone Middleman then represented the Eazor Estate in the settlement with the Estate later paying fees to Malone Middleman.
- Estate settled for $285,000; Malone Middleman received $67,000 in attorney fees; a referral fee of $12,000 went to Weiler; the dispute centered on how the fees should be apportioned.
- Meyer Darragh filed suit in 2010 asserting breach of contract and quantum meruit; the case was decided by a judge on stipulated facts, resulting in mixed outcomes
- Trial court ruled for the Eazor Estate executors and awarded Meyer Darragh $14,721.39 on quantum meruit against Malone Middleman; on appeal, the court vacated and remanded to enter judgment for two-thirds of the contingent fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether quantum meruit against Malone Middleman is viable | Meyer Darragh asserts quantum meruit against Malone Middleman. | Malone Middleman argues no quantum meruit against successor counsel; contract governs. | Quantum meruit against Malone Middleman fails; contract controls. |
| Whether Meyer Darragh is entitled to two-thirds of the Eazor Estate fee under the employment agreement | Two-thirds of the fees belong to Meyer Darragh per the Weiler-Meyer Darragh contract. | Malone Middleman contends no obligation beyond any separate agreement; asserts different fee split. | Meyer Darragh is entitled to two-thirds of the contingent fee under the employment agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sundheim v. Beaver County Building & Loan Ass'n, 140 Pa.Super. 529, 14 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940) (client may terminate; quantum meruit may apply for services rendered)
- Hiscott and Robinson v. King, 426 Pa.Super. 338, 626 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) (quantum meruit as remedy when contract terminated)
- Styer v. Hugo, 422 Pa.Super. 262, 619 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) (initial attorney may have quantum meruit against client; against successor attorney no)
- Fowkes v. Shoemaker, 443 Pa.Super. 343, 661 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (no quantum meruit against successor attorney when client contract exists)
- Mager v. Bultena, 797 A.2d 948 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (predecessor law firm cannot claim against others when no direct contract)
- Ruby v. Abington Memorial Hosp., 50 A.3d 128 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (unjust enrichment not available where there is a written contract; apportionment subject to contract terms)
- Feingold v. Pucello, 654 A.2d 1093 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (dicta on quantum meruit against a former client; reliance on Johnson v. Stein)
- Johnson v. Stein, 385 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1978) (discussion of equitable remedies; dicta on quantum meruit against former clients)