11 We are called upon in this case to decide the narrow question of whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard when it concluded that withdrawal of counsel was not justified because the attorney-client relationship was not "irretrievably broken." We conclude that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard. We therefore reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
T2 In 2001, Cynthia Johnsen hired attorney David Hartwig to represent her in a personal injury claim stemming from a car accident. In conjunction with the representation, Johnsen signed a Contingent Fee Retainer - Agreement - (the - "Agreement"). Among other things, the Agreement provided that in the event Johnsen's actions caused Hartwig to withdraw from representation prior to the completion of the case, Johnsen was obligated to pay attorney fees-based upon an hourly rate-for all the time Hart-wig had expended prior to the withdrawal.
{3 Some time after signing the Agreement, Johnsen and Hartwig began having difficulty with their attorney-client relationship. As a result, Johnsen threatened to file a professional misconduct claim against Hartwig with the Utah State Bar. In May 2004, and in direct response to her threat, Hartwig sent correspondence to Johnsen indicating his withdrawal from her case, effectively terminating their attorney-client relationship.
T4 Following his withdrawal as counsel, Hartwig sued Johnsen for $10,892.36 plus interest
1
for work he had performed prior to
T5 After a two-day bench trial, the trial court concluded that Hartwig had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the attorney-client relationship had been irretrievably broken. Therefore, the trial court concluded that Hartwig was not justified in withdrawing from the case and had no right to recover his fees. Hartwig now appeals that decision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1,2] 16 Whether attorney fees are recoverable is a question of law "which we review for correctness." - Jensen v. Sawyers,
ANALYSIS
17 Hartwig contends that an attorney may recover fees he has already earned if the attorney withdraws from a case for "good cause." Moreover, Hartwig argues that the trial court in this case erroneously applied the higher standard of "irretrievably broken" to determine whether his withdrawal was justified. Johnsen, on the other hand, concedes that "good cause" is the appropriate standard but argues that the trial court actually applied that standard, even though it used the term "irretrievably broken." John-sen also contends that any error in using the "irretrievably broken" terminology was invited by Hartwig because he used that language repeatedly in his closing arguments to the trial court. 2 Finally, Johnsen claims that if we conclude that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard, we should nonetheless affirm on alternative grounds. 3 Because we conclude that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and that conclusion is dispositive, analysis of Johnsen's alternative grounds is premature.
T8 We have long held that a party may discharge his [or her] attorney with or without cause, [an] attorney should not withdraw from a case except for good cause." Midvale Motors, Inc. v. Saunders,
[ 9 In this case, the trial court erroneously applied a higher legal standard, requiring that the relationship between Hartwig and Johnsen be "irretrievably broken" in order for Hartwig's withdrawal to be justified. Indeed, the trial court formally concluded that "[Hartwig] was entitled to withdraw from the case prior to completion, and to recover at his hourly rate for all time expended up to the time of withdrawal, only if the attorney-client relationship between the parties had trretrievably broken down as a result of [Johnsen's] actions." 4 (Emphasis added.) This is not the correct legal standard.
CONCLUSION
10 The correct legal standard for determining whether withdrawal of counsel is justified is whether the attorney had good cause to withdraw, and the trial court in this case erroneously applied a higher legal standard. Accordingly, we reverse and remand so that the trial court may review the case based on the evidence already presented as reflected in the record and apply the correct legal standard. No further evidentiary hearing is necessary.
« 11 Reversed.
Notes
. In his original complaint, Hartwig claimed Johnsen owed him $10,392.36 plus interest. At the trial, however, Hartwig testified that Johnsen owed him a slightly different amount, ie., $10,307.17, plus $5749.63 in interest and $197.17 and $182.00 in costs and fees. Hartwig also testified that Johnsen had a credit of
. Indeed, Hartwig made several references to a "breakdown" of the attorney-client relationship during his closing argument. For example, Hartwig stated that when Johnsen threatened to file a complaint with the Utah State Bar, "that is really the decay of the relationship," which "show[s] a huge breakdown in trust and communications" as well as a "breakdown in confidence." (Emphases added.) Additionally, Hart-wig stated that "the relationship has degenerated to a great extent, even perhaps, trreparable," and that there had been a "breakdown of the attorney-client relationship." (Emphases added.)
. Johnsen raises a host of alternative grounds for affirmance. Specifically, Johnsen argues that (1) Hartwig's withdrawal was not justified because the Agreement was ambiguous and vague, (2) no "good cause" existed to justify Hartwig's withdrawal, and (3) Hartwig failed to provide sufficient evidence of damages to establish his claim for attorney fees and reasonable costs.
. The trial court acknowledged that "good cause" was the correct legal standard for determining whether it was appropriate for Hartwig to have withdrawn as counsel. For example, during Hartwig's direct examination of Johnsen, the trial court asked "isn't the gravamen of the claim here that ... there had been a breakdown of communications . justifying, the good cause" for withdrawal? (Emphasis added.) Additionally, the trial court acknowledged that "the standard in terms of withdrawing appears to be that there's good cause to withdraw." (Emphasis added.) Hartwig also notified the trial court that "good cause" was the correct standard when he argued, "This is the general rule. Basically, good cause. What is good cause? Circumstances such as client's claim is fraudulent." Although the trial court clearly understood the correct legal standard, it used different language, Le., "irretrievably broken," in its findings of fact and conclusions of law.