Ubaldo Cesar v. John A Macconi, Jr. LLC, CPU4-16-000642

Background

Cesar retained attorney Macconi on Sept. 12, 2014 to defend a condominium-fee suit for a $5,000 flat fee; Cesar paid $3,200 in installments.
Macconi entered appearance, filed motions, and engaged in discovery and litigation activity on Cesar's behalf.
By May 2015 communication broke down; Macconi moved to withdraw citing lack of cooperation and ethical concerns and was permitted to withdraw but ordered to appear at the May 12 trial.
Cesar failed to appear timely at the May 12 trial; judgment entered for the condominium association and Cesar’s motion to vacate was denied.
Cesar sued Macconi in Justice of the Peace Court seeking return of $3,200 for allegedly inadequate representation and improper withdrawal; case reached trial de novo in Court of Common Pleas.
Trial evidence included the retainer, payment records, emails showing communication attempts and impasse, and Macconi’s non-hourly billing/escrow summary; the trial court found Macconi had performed significant work and the fee was reasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Macconi breached representation or earned fees	Cesar: Macconi failed to represent him adequately and withdrew shortly before trial, so fees should be refunded	Macconi: He performed substantial work consistent with the retainer and the $3,200 reflects work performed and is reasonable	Court: Macconi acted diligently, performed substantial services, and fees were earned; judgment for defendant
Whether withdrawal was improper and caused prejudice	Cesar: Withdrawal four days before trial and retention of documents prevented him from proceeding	Cesar alleged prejudice from withdrawal and non-return of materials	Macconi: Withdrawal was justified by breakdown in communication; he attempted to notify and return materials; some documents were obtained via discovery, but not critical	Court: Withdrawal was justified given client conduct and communications; delay and missing docs were Cesar's responsibility; not dispositive
Whether attorney communications and fee disclosures were sufficient	Cesar: Implied claim that communications were inadequate and fee arrangement/or application was improper	Macconi: Provided written retainer detailing flat fee, payment schedule, and performed work consistent with scope	Court: Written retainer and communications supported the scope and reasonableness of fees; Rule 1.5 factors satisfied
Appropriate remedy/costs	Cesar: Refund of $3,200 plus interest	Macconi: No refund; fees earned; each party should bear own costs	Court: No refund; judgment for defendant; each party bears own costs

Key Cases Cited

Danenberg v. Fitracks, Inc., 58 A.3d 991 (Del. Ch. 2012) (discussing factors for assessing reasonableness of attorneys' fees and court discretion)
Mabani v. EDIX Media Grp., Inc., 935 A.2d 242 (Del. 2007) (client conduct can justify additional attorney time charged to client)
Reynolds v. Reynolds, 237 A.2d 708 (Del. 1967) (preponderance standard in civil cases)