The Law Firm of Thomas A. Tarro, III v. Maria Checrallah
60 A.3d 598
R.I.2013Background
- In 1989, Tarro was hired to prosecute and settle claims regarding defendant's father’s estate for 15% of any recovery under the retainer.
- Tarro helped establish defendant’s interest in a $2,390,000 Victory note payable by Victory Finishing Technologies, Inc.
- Tarro negotiated a probate settlement: defendant would receive one half of the estate, including half of Victory note interest and principal; Tarro collected fees by distributing 85% to defendant and retaining 15% as his fee.
- Tarro helped remove defendant’s brother as executor in 1999; a Victory receivership later filed a claim on behalf of the estate.
- Tarro served a notice of attorney’s lien in 2002 as amounts remained owed under the Victory note and was discharged by defendant in July 2002.
- In 2005, with successor counsel, defendant settled the Victory claim in receivership for $1,250,000, with staged payments and a court-ordered $30,000 holdback to enforce Tarro’s lien; defendant ultimately received $1,250,000 of the agreed sum and $950,000 was later paid, with Tarro not receiving portions of either the $100,000 or the $950,000 payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tarro is entitled to 15% of the receivership settlement. | Tarro contends fee vested when probate settlement reached. | Tarro discharged before settlement; no entitlement to contingency fee post-discharge. | Tarro's fee vested at the probate settlement; discharge did not extinguish earned fees. |
| Whether contingency fees post-discharge are recoverable when service had substantially been performed. | Contingency fee should be paid in full for substantially performed work. | Only quantum meruit for value of services after discharge; no full contingency fee. | When substantial performance occurred before discharge, full contingency fee may be recoverable. |
| Whether the proper measure is contract-based contingency or quantum meruit after discharge. | Contingency contract applies; fee already earned. | Quantum meruit governs after discharge. | Court affirmed contract-based entitlement for the earned portion; quantum meruit not required for the vested fee. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lake v. Winfield Fuller Co., 54 R.I. 358 (1934) (client may discharge attorney; consequences borne by client)
- Fracasse v. Brent, 494 P.2d 9 (Cal. 1972) (discharged attorney after contingency: recover value of services)
- McCullough v. Waterside Associates, 925 A.2d 352 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007) (discharged after settlement; entitled to full contingency fee)
- Zaklama v. Mount Sinai Medical Center, 906 F.2d 650 (11th Cir. 1990) (after settlement, entitled to full contingency fee)
- MacInnis v. Pope, 285 P.2d 688 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1955) (full contingency fee after successful settlement)
- Sophie F. Bronowiski Mulligan Irrevocable Trust v. Bridges, 44 A.3d 116 (R.I. 2012) (damages to place injured party in position as if fully performed)