Parnoff v. Yuille, 163 Conn.App. 273

In 1998 Parnoff (attorney) and Yuille (client) executed a contingent fee agreement calling for a 40% fee on a personal injury recovery, exceeding Connecticut’s statutory fee cap, § 52-251c.
An arbitration award in 2004 granted Yuille $1,096,032.93; Parnoff invoiced 40% and Yuille objected.
Parnoff sued on three counts: breach of contract (based on the written retainer), quantum meruit (unjust enrichment), and bad faith; a jury found for Parnoff on contract and bad faith and did not decide quantum meruit as instructed.
On appeal (Parnoff I), the Appellate Court held the fee agreement violated § 52-251c and was unenforceable; it reversed the contract and bad faith judgments and remanded, without resolving quantum meruit.
On remand the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the quantum meruit count; Parnoff appealed, arguing he was entitled to a merits hearing on quantum meruit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether attorney may recover in quantum meruit against client when contingent fee agreement violates § 52-251c	Parnoff: quantum meruit was a separate equitable claim not decided by the jury and he should get a hearing to recover reasonable value for services	Yuille: allowing quantum meruit would nullify § 52-251c, undermining public policy and statutory exclusivity for contingency fees	Court: Attorney cannot recover in quantum meruit against client where contract recovery is barred by § 52-251c; statutory scheme and public policy preclude such recovery
Whether the trial court erred by deciding a "Motion for Judgment" given practice rules	Parnoff: motion caption improper; no stand‑alone motion for judgment exists	Yuille: caption is not dispositive; courts look to substance; prior mandate required dismissal of contract remedies	Court: No error — the court properly construed and decided the motion consistent with practice and prior appellate mandate

Parnoff v. Yuille, 139 Conn. App. 147 (Conn. App. 2012) (earlier appeal holding fee agreement violated § 52-251c and was unenforceable)
Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390 (Conn. 2001) (permitting quantum meruit recovery against a successor attorney despite a fee‑cap violation because transactions were separate)
Grimm v. Fox, 303 Conn. 322 (Conn. 2012) (stand‑alone "motion for judgment" construed by court as summary judgment‑type motion and caption alone is not dispositive)
Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning, 307 Conn. 582 (Conn. 2012) (standard of review: applicability of equitable doctrines is a question of law subject to plenary review)