Shepherd v. Greer, Klosic & Daugherty
325 Ga. App. 188
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Shepherd hired Greer, Klosic & Daugherty (GKD) on a contingency-fee basis after a car-bus collision and signed a written Attorney-Client contract containing a termination provision specifying compensation if the client terminated the firm prior to recovery.
- Shepherd later terminated GKD before settlement; GKD filed an attorney’s lien under OCGA § 15-19-14 and demanded payment after Shepherd settled with MARTA.
- GKD sought roughly $54,000, including $37,851 in attorney fees, $13,512 in paralegal fees billed at $125/hour, and expenses; Shepherd refused to pay the paralegal portion.
- The trial court granted partial judgment to GKD, concluding the contract unambiguously covered paralegal work at the stated paralegal rate and ordered payment of $50,459.31.
- On appeal the sole issue was whether the termination provision required payment for paralegal services; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and found the contract ambiguous on that point.
- The court examined parol evidence (Shepherd’s verified interrogatory stating Daugherty explained only his $275/hour would apply on termination; Daugherty’s affidavit contradicted parts of that) and held the ambiguity could not be resolved on summary judgment; reversed and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the termination provision requires payment for paralegal services | Shepherd: "services" meant the attorney (Daugherty) only; she was told she would pay $275/hour for Daugherty’s time and was not told she'd pay paralegal rates | GKD: “attorneys” refers to the firm; “services rendered” includes professional services by paralegals; firm should recover paralegal fees | Court: Contract ambiguous as to whether "services" includes paralegal work; ambiguity unresolved by construction and parol evidence conflicts; issue for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1989) (addressed recovery of paralegal fees under federal fee statutes)
- Richlin Security Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (U.S. 2008) (addressed statutory interpretation concerning paralegal fee recovery)
- McGuire Holdings, LLLP v. TSQ Partners, LLC, 290 Ga. App. 595 (Ga. Ct. App.) (definition of contractual ambiguity)
- White v. Kaminsky, 271 Ga. App. 719 (Ga. Ct. App.) (when ambiguity remains after construction, jury resolves intent)
- Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35 (Ga. Ct. App.) (parol evidence admissible to resolve contract ambiguity)