 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Spruance v. Thomas11/13/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Defendants Thomas D. Thomas, Joseph D. Davis and their law firm Davis & Thomas (collectively D&T; appeal from the judgment entered after an order granting H. Douglas Spruance III's motion for summary adjudication of his cause of action against D&T;for breach of contract. Spruance's contract claim is based on a referral fee agreement between Spruance and D&T; which provided that Spruance would receive 15 percent of the attorney fees earned by D&T;for representing George L. Dircks, Jr., in a personal injury lawsuit.
The essential questions presented are whether Dircks's written referral fee authorization satisfied the requirements of rule 2-200(A) of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct and whether a client who has consented to a fee division between lawyers pursuant to rule 2-200 retains the right to withdraw or revoke that consent. We answer the first question "yes," the second "no," and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Spruance's Referral and Dircks's Consent to the Referral Fee Agreement
Spruance, a member of both the California and Washington bars, practices law in Spokane, Washington. On October 2, 1996 Dircks, a resident of Spokane, retained Spruance to pursue Dircks's claims for asbestos-related injuries against various manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-related products.
After some initial research Spruance concluded California would be the best forum for Dircks's personal injury case. On October 16, 1996 Spruance called Thomas regarding Dircks's action. Spruance inquired about associating with D&T;to prosecute the lawsuit, but Thomas rejected the idea. Spruance and Thomas then discussed a straight referral of the case and the payment of a referral fee to Spruance if D&T;agreed to represent Dircks. In this initial conversation Spruance proposed a 25 percent fee. After further discussion, Spruance and Thomas ultimately agreed on a referral fee of 15 percent.
Following the October 16, 1996 telephone call, Spruance told Dircks about the referral to Thomas and the fact that Spruance would receive a referral fee from D&T; Dircks responded that he did not care what the referral fee was as long as it did not increase his total attorney fees on the asbestos case.
Thomas met Dircks on October 22, 1996, and the men agreed Thomas and D&T;would represent Dircks in his personal injury litigation. Dircks signed a contingency fee retainer agreement, which provided that D&T;would be paid a fee of 40 percent of any gross recoveries unless an appeal was filed, in which case D&T;would receive a fee of 50 percent of the gross recovery.
On November 21, 1996 Thomas sent Dircks a "referral fee authorization" with an explanatory cover letter requesting that Dircks sign and return the document. The authorization stated, "I, GEORGE LEONARD DIRCKS, JR., hereby authorize the law firm of Davis & Thomas to pay a referral fee of fifteen percent (15%) of the attorneys' fees earned by the Davis & Thomas law firm to H. Douglas Spruance, from my asbestos personal injury lawsuit." Dircks signed and dated the authorization on November 30, 1996.
On December 4, 1996 Thomas sent Spruance a copy of the signed referral fee authorization. In his letter Thomas stated, "As we discu
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|