 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gilbert v. Evan6/21/2002
a client discharges, terminates, or discontinues the employment relationship, prior to settlement or trial, the client agrees to pay an hourly fee of $200.00 an hour for those services performed prior to written notification of the discharge. This agreement exists "Notwithstanding the above" which means, if the conditions are met, that this provision supercedes all of the earlier above provisions, including the contingency fee agreement. The record established that Yancey was discharged as Gilbert's attorney prior to the settlement. Consequently, the hourly fee provision of the contract controls.
The courts have recognized a "hybridized contingent-hourly fee agreement" where a contract consists of contingency fee language together with hourly fee language. See Anderson, Hawsey & Rainach v. Clean Land Air Water Corp., 489 So.2d 928 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1986). In Anderson the attorne y was limited to a recovery of the hourly fee specified in the contingency fee contract. In this case, we are presented with such a contract.
Yancey contends that the Saucier case is the controlling authority for the recognition of his right to have the contingency fee apportioned between him and Callahan. The law is clear that parties are free to contract for any object that is lawful, possible, and determined or determinable, except for those instances where the government places restrictions for reasons of public policy. See La. Civ. Code. art. 1971; Buck's Run Enterprises, Inc. v. Mapp Const., Inc., 1999-3054, p. 5, (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/16/01), 808 So.2d 428, 432. There is no law prohibiting this hybrid contingency fee contract nor has any court declared such contracts invalid because they are against public policy.
Yancey drafted the contract and agreed to its terms. He provided the language that limited his recovery to his hourly fee should he be discharged prior to settlement. The language is clear and unambiguous. It is not subject to more than one interpretation. The trial court had a duty to enforce the clear language of the contract.
There are no material issues of fact regarding the provisions of the contract and the motion for summary judgment was properly granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of the appeal are assessed against appellant.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|