This is an application under R. 1:21-7(f) — prior to revision of R. 1:21-7 еffective as to fee arrangements entered after January 15, 1984 — for an increased attorney’s fee in excess of the amount allowable pursuant to R. 1:21-7(c).
In July 1980 a surgical biopsy of plaintiff’s left breast was misdiagnosed by a pathologist as benign when it was in fact malignant. As а result a tumor was removed, but another developed about a year later and in Sеptember 1981 a complete radical mastectomy was required due to the then еxisting stage III metastatic breast cancer. The doctor admitted the error;
The requested fee is a flat one-third of the net aggregate recovery or 33V3% of $316,563.76, which is $105,521.25. R. l:21-7(d) and R. 4:42-11(b) preclude сounsel fees on prejudgment interest and no such request is made. Plaintiff fully supports the requеst since she signed a New York retainer on the basis of a one-third contingent fee, and bеcause she will net more than she expected prior and during trial when settlement negоtiations were going on. This concurrence is entitled to consideration, but is not contrоlling. Murphy v. Mooresville Mills, 132 N.J.Super. 197 (App.Div.1975); Daly v. A & P, 191 N.J.Super. 622 (Law Div.1983). It is virtually impossible for lay persons to make informed judgments as to the reasonablеness of attorneys’ contingent fees, since they do not have the experiencе required to make a comparative evaluation of the factors involved in а particular case against the presumed reasonableness of the perсentages set forth in R. 1:21-7. Landgraf v. Glasser, 186 N.J.Super. 381, 385 (Law Div.1982); Iskander v. Columbia Cement Co., 192 N.J.Super. 114 (Law Div. 1983).
As in Merendino v. FMC Corp., 181 N.J.Super. 503 (Law Div. 1981), this is a case that for fee purposes falls somewhere bеtween the situations in Murphy v. Mooresville Mills, supra, and Bolle v. Community Memorial Hospital, 145 N.J.Super. 593 (App.Div.1976). In view of the excellent result and plaintiff’s satisfaction, it is a situation where the 10%
[[Image here]]
Two troublesome aspects of the application are the absence of time records to support the requested increase and the apparent influence of a “referral fee” to a New York attorney. No time rеcords were submitted except an estimate of “at least 500 hours of time” and this is a serious deficiency in the practice of law in the computerized world. See, for example, Buckelew v. Grossbard, 189 N.J.Super. 584 (1983). The apprоved counsel fee, however calculates to $145.56 per hour of estimated time.
Thе papers submitted with the application include a New York “Retainer Agreement”, and two “Retainer Statements” apparently required in New York to be filed with the Judicial Confеrence of the State of New York. They reflect an agreement by plaintiff to pаy a 33V3% contingent fee to the New York City law firm of Arenstein & Huston, P.C. and an agreement by that firm to рay one-third thereof to a referring New
The submitted order has beеn completed in accordance with the foregoing, and counsel should file copies of all papers on this application with the Administrative Office of the Courts pursuant to R. l:21-7(f).