Wright Ex Rel. Wright v. Wright
337 S.W.3d 166
| Tenn. | 2011Background
- Kaitlyn Wright, a minor, was seriously injured in a May 12, 2005 automobile accident involving Grandmother; medical expenses totaled $183,814.30.
- Father executed a one-third contingent fee agreement with Dunaway to pursue Kaitlyn's claim, with court approval being a condition for the minor.
- Grandmother's estate settled Kaitlyn's claim for $425,000, with additional obligations to cover costs, including guardian ad litem expenses, and to invest the net recovery long-term.
- Dunaway was initially awarded $141,666.66 (one-third of $425,000) as contractual fees; Romer, the guardian ad litem, appealed; Court of Appeals remanded for RPC 1.5 factor findings.
- On remand, at an evidentiary hearing, the trial court awarded $131,000 as a reasonable fee, and Romer again appealed; Court of Appeals affirmed; this Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should RPC 1.5(a) factors govern fees for minors? | Wright | Wright | Yes; RPC 1.5(a) factors govern minor cases and no special factor is required. |
| Can a next friend's contingency contract bind the minor to the attorney's fee? | Wright | Wright | No; contract cannot bind the minor; court must determine reasonable fee independently. |
| Should the lodestar method control fees in minor representation? | Romer | Dunaway | No; courts should not adopt lodestar as sole or primary approach; RPC 1.5 factors remain applicable. |
| Should there be a fee cap for minors or a percentage-based approach? | Romer | Dunaway | No; no statutory or judicially-imposed cap; factors rather than a cap govern reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Med. Corp. v. Hohenwald Bank & Trust Co., 703 S.W.2d 133 (Tenn. 1986) (multi-factor approach to reasonableness of attorney's fees; time and labor considered)
- White v. McBride, 937 S.W.2d 796 (Tenn. 1996) (necessity to consider particular circumstances; fee reasonableness depends on case specifics)
- Shoughrue v. St. Mary's Med. Ctr., 152 S.W.3d 577 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (minors' fees evaluated under factors akin to RPC 1.5; special protection of minors)
- Pellegrin v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh (In re Abrams & Abrams, P.A.), 605 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2010) (illustrates lodestar concerns and risk of non-recovery in minor cases (cited for contextual contrast))
- Settlements of Betts, 587 N.E.2d 1002 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pleas 1991) (rejected one-third fee where no risk; supports factor-based analysis)