St. Pierre v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc.
102 So. 3d 1003
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Intervenors Robin Lawyer and the Roussel Firm seek to intervene to assert a contingency-fee privilege under La. R.S. 37:218 in the St. Pierre survival action.
- St. Pierre Children (and Exceptor-Defendants) file peremptory exceptions; trial court sustains and dismisses intervention.
- Contingency Fee Agreement recorded; after Wayne St. Pierre’s death, Lawyer continues with Roussel Firm; St. Pierre Children retain Bickford Firm.
- Trial court order allocates survival damages equally among four plaintiffs and preserves counsel rights under RS 37:218.
- Intervenors contend they may recover fees/costs and interfere with settlements; court holds no standing and no valid intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roussel Firm intervenes under RS 37:218 | Roussel claims entitlement against clients/parties per 37:218. | Children/Exceptors lack standing; firm's rights premature and limited to client. | Interventions denied; no standing to intervene against clients/defendants. |
| Lawyer intervenes to recover costs paid | Lawyer seeks costs expended from other beneficiaries. | Lawyer not a third party; lacks capacity to intervene since already a party. | Intervention denied; insufficient capacity to intervene as party plaintiff. |
| Unjust enrichment claim by Intervenors | Work and costs by Roussel/Lawyer unjustly enriched Bickford clients. | No correlative impoverishment or enrichment against the other party. | |
| Kirkpatrick v. Young controls. | No unjust enrichment; claim dismissed. | ||
| Interference with settlements under RS 37:218 | Statute allows interference with settlements to protect fee rights. | Attorney interest is a privilege; cannot interfere with client settlements. | No right to interfere/nullify settlements; provision not to be read as total veto. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 373 So.2d 102 (La. 1978) (fee privilege aids collection of earned contingency fee)
- Calk v. Highland Constr. and Mfg., 376 So.2d 495 (La. 1979) (fee privilege attached to settlement proceeds when asserted prior to disbursement)
- Scott v. Kemper Ins. Co., 377 So.2d 66 (La. 1979) (attorney cannot force continued representation or control client settlements)
- Kirkpatrick v. Young, 456 So.2d 622 (La. 1984) (no correlative impoverishment; unjust enrichment requires plausibly paired loss)
- Francis v. Hotard, 798 So.2d 982 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2001) (attorney interests permit no right to interfere with settlements by non-clients)
- Brown v. ANPAC Louisiana Ins. Co., 95 So.3d 1165 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (discharged attorney can intervene to seek fees under RS 37:218)
- Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, 8 So.3d 99 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2009) (clarifies standing and procedures for intervenors)
- Simmons v. Chambliss, 852 So.2d 1237 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2003) ( interventor standing considerations in fee-related actions)
- Mexic v. Mexic, 808 So.2d 685 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2001) (proper use of intervention by nonparties)