 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barrett v. Freise11/24/2003
ettlement offer is accepted and money received would eviscerate the usefulness of contingency fee contracts. Id. at 729. The record unequivocally establishes that Freise had substantially performed under the agreement regarding the American States settlement, as of June 24, 1996. As previously discussed, Freise's advice to defer consummating the settlement pending resolution of the dram shop claim was legally sound. Freise advised the deferral in the best interests of Jeff, JoLynn and their children notwithstanding that his own best interests would have been served by consummating the settlement immediately and taking his contingency fee and recovering his costs advanced then and there. The trial court did not err in concluding as a matter of law at the time of summary judgment that Freise had substantially performed his obligations under the contingency fee contract with respect to the American States policy limits, before he was discharged by John and Jeff. RCW 4.25.005
The purpose of the trial was to determine the reasonable amount of attorney fees owed to Freise and his law firm for legal services to Jeff Barrett prior to Freise's discharge. John and Jeff assign error to the following conclusion of law entered by the court following the trial: Plaintiffs' claims under RCW 4.24.005 as to the $100,000 UIM settlement with Pemco Insurance were not timely filed within 90 days of the final billing or accounting, but rather were filed nearly a year late. The Court has no jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of those fees under this statute.
Clerk's Papers at 36.
RCW 4.24.005 provides:
Any party charged with the payment of attorney's fees in any tort action may petition the court not later than forty-five days of receipt of a final billing or accounting for a determination of the reasonableness of that party's attorneys' fees. The court shall make such a determination and shall take into consideration the following:
(1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;
(2) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;
(3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;
(4) The amount involved and the results obtained;
(5) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;
(6) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;
(7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services;
(8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent;
(9) Whether the fixed or contingent fee agreement was in writing and whether the client was aware of his or her right to petition the court under this section;
(10) The terms of the fee agreement.
John and Jeff Barrett contend that this conclusion is legally erroneous because: (1) the 45 day statute of limitations is tolled during the time a person is incompetent, and (2) their claims under the statute were filed on May 9, 1997, which was within 45 days of the March 25, 1997 accounting sent by Freise to Tracy Waggoner, the guardian ad litem in the marital dissolution action. The accounting contained a summary of Freise's time and costs through that date.
Addressing the second contention first, the trial court found that Freise submitted the accounting for the UIM settlement proceeds to JoLynn and Jeff on May 8, 1996, and that the 45-day limitation for contesting that accounting began to ru
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|