Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC, 329 P.3d 229

Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. (a law firm) sued Farwest and associated parties for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; a jury returned verdicts for Munger Chadwick.
After judgment, Munger Chadwick sought attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A); Farwest objected, arguing the firm had effectively represented itself and thus was ineligible for fees.
Trial court awarded fees to Munger Chadwick; Farwest moved for a new trial challenging the fee award and appealed after the motion was denied.
Appellate court held Farwest’s motion was a proper Rule 59 new-trial motion that tolled the appeal period, so the appeal was timely.
The central question on appeal was whether a law firm that appears as a party and has its own lawyers try the case can recover attorney fees when it prevails.
The court concluded Arizona’s rule barring pro se litigants from recovering attorney fees applies to law firms that effectively represent themselves, vacating the fee award but affirming the underlying judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Farwest’s Rule 59 motion tolled the appeal period	— (Farwest) Motion invoked Rule 59 grounds; tolled appeal	— (Munger Chadwick) Motion was a mislabeled reconsideration; did not toll	Motion was a proper new-trial motion referencing Rule 59; appeal timely
Whether a party that is a law firm may recover attorney fees when it "represents itself"	Munger Chadwick: a PLC cannot "represent itself"; firm is entitled to fees like other entities	Farwest: rule barring pro se fee recovery should apply to law firms that use internal lawyers	Court: Rule barring pro se fee recovery applies to law firms that effectively self-represent; firm ineligible for fees
Whether Hunt v. Eliot permits fee recovery by lawyer-parties or firms	Munger Chadwick relied on Hunt to argue an entity cannot self-represent, so fees are allowed	Farwest: Hunt does not support exempting firms from pro se-fee rule	Court distinguished Hunt and reframed rule: entities cannot be represented by nonlawyers, but law firms still can be treated as pro se when they supply their own counsel; Hunt not controlling
Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded under § 12-341.01	Munger Chadwick requested fees as successful party	Farwest requested fees on appeal	Court exercised discretion and denied both parties’ requests; Munger Chadwick not "successful party" for purposes of the statute

Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons, 117 Ariz. 202 (App. 1977) (look to substance over form when characterizing post-judgment motions)
Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Vagnozzi, 132 Ariz. 219 (1982) (a motion labeling or invoking Rule 59 grounds may be treated as a new-trial motion that tolls appeal)
Hunt Inv. Co. v. Eliot, 154 Ariz. 357 (App. 1987) (discusses fee recovery by a lawyer associated with a partnership/entity)
Connor v. Cal-AZ Props., Inc., 137 Ariz. 53 (App. 1983) (pro se litigants are not entitled to attorney-fee awards)
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Lane & Bird Adver., Inc., 102 Ariz. 127 (1967) (entities may not be represented by nonlawyers)
Anamax Mining Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 147 Ariz. 482 (App. 1985) (same principle regarding unauthorized representatives for entities)
PNL Credit L.P. v. Sw. Pac. Invs., Inc., 179 Ariz. 259 (App. 1994) (new-trial motion can challenge attorney-fee awards)
Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567 (1985) (attorney-fee awards under § 12-341.01 are discretionary)
T.H. Props. v. Sunshine Auto Rental, Inc., 151 Ariz. 444 (App. 1986) (statutory fee claimant must be the successful party)