Welman v. Parker
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1586
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Parker withdraws from Welman, Hively, Godley & Parker L.L.P. on Dec. 31, 2004; no dissolution agreement reached; both sides exchanged files and some remained with each party.
- Yates personal-injury case involved a contingent-fee contract with Parker as principal contact; Parker ultimately left with the case.
- In 2005 Parker joined Welch, Todd & Parker and obtained a $119,600 contingent fee from Yates settlement in 2006.
- The trial court held that contingent-fee cases pending at dissolution remained partnership assets, basing its decision on Ellerby v. Spiezer.
- The appellate court rejected the contract-rule view, adopting a modern, quantum meruit approach and holding clients may discharge the firm; the dissolved firm may recover only reasonable value of services provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contingent-fee contracts survive dissolution as firm assets | Parker’s withdrawal means clients may continue with new counsel; fees belong to client, not firm | Trial court followed contract-based view; fees are assets of dissolved partnership | Contingent-fee contracts terminate with client; only reasonable value of services is recoverable by firm |
| What is the proper measure for post-dissolution recovery by the withdrawing attorney | Withdrawn partner should receive full contracted fee if client stays with her | Recovery limited to reasonable value of services, not full contract price | Withdrawn partner may recover only reasonable value of services, not contracted fee, once client elects new counsel |
| Role of client in determining representation after dissolution | Clients should not be bound to continue with dissolved firm; discharge rights prevail | Clients may be directed to stay or transfer; communication required | Client discretion governs representation; no double contingent fee for client discharge |
Key Cases Cited
- Plaza Shoe Store, Inc. v. Hermel, Inc., 636 S.W.2d 53 (Mo. banc 1982) (discharged contingent-fee attorney limited to reasonable value of services rendered)
- Cupples, 952 S.W.2d 226 (Mo. banc 1997) (clients may direct transfer of representation; duties upon withdrawal)
- International Materials Corp. v. Sun Corp., Inc., 824 S.W.2d 890 (Mo. banc 1992) (contingent-fee contract termination yields quantum meruit recovery)
- Ellerby v. Spiezer, 138 Ill.App.3d 77, 485 N.E.2d 413 (Ill. App. 1985) (supports contract-based view in some contexts (cited for contrast))
- Goldstein and Price, L.C. v. Tonkin & Mondl, L.C., 974 S.W.2d 543 (Mo. App. 1998) (recognizes modern rule of recovery based on value of services)