190 Conn. App. 284
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Rosenthal Law Firm, LLC (plaintiff) represented by its sole member Edward Rosenthal provided legal services to James Cohen (defendant) under a retainer agreement that obligated Cohen to pay collection costs, including the firm’s attorney’s fees and interest, if he failed to pay agreed fees.
- A fee dispute was submitted to the Connecticut Bar Association fee resolution board; an arbitration panel awarded the firm $109,683. The firm obtained confirmation of the arbitration award in Superior Court; the Appellate Court affirmed and the Supreme Court denied certification.
- Rosenthal (the firm’s sole member) personally prosecuted the arbitration and subsequent court proceedings on the firm’s behalf.
- The firm sued Cohen for breach of the retainer agreement and sought $59,600 in attorney’s fees representing Rosenthal’s time spent pursuing the fee dispute and related proceedings.
- The trial court denied recovery of attorney’s fees, concluding that because the firm effectively represented itself (through Rosenthal), it could not recover fees under Connecticut law barring pro se litigants from recovering attorney’s fees.
- The plaintiff appealed, arguing (1) the appellate decision in Jones v. Ippoliti that extended the pro se bar to attorney-litigants was dictum and not binding, and (2) that the firm should recover contractual fees under the plain language of the retainer agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a law firm that is represented in litigation by its own member(s) may recover contractual attorney’s fees for time its member spent prosecuting the firm’s claim | Jones’s statement extending Lev should be treated as dictum; Rosenthal can recover contractual fees under the retainer language | A firm that prosecutes its own claim through its members is effectively self-represented and barred from recovering attorney’s fees under the rule applied in Jones/Lev | Court held Jones’s extension of Lev to self-represented attorney-litigants is an alternative holding (not dictum) and binding; firm cannot recover the claimed attorney’s fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Ippoliti, 52 Conn. App. 199 (appellate court decision extending Lev to self-represented attorney-litigants)
- Lev v. Lev, 10 Conn. App. 570 (Conn. App.) (announcing general rule barring pro se litigants from recovering attorney’s fees)
- Rosenthal Law Firm, LLC v. Cohen, 165 Conn. App. 467 (Conn. App.) (prior appeal confirming arbitration award)
- United States v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472 (U.S. Supreme Court) (explaining that alternative grounds adopted by an appellate court are binding holdings, not dictum)