 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kalled v. Albee5/11/1998
Carroll
This case involves the issue of whether an attorney may enforce a fee-sharing agreement in a contingent fee case where that attorney loses his license to practice law prior to entry of judgment in the case. We hold that, under these circumstances, an attorney may not enforce the agreement.
The defendant, Pamela D. Albee, worked for the plaintiff, James J. Kalled, in his law office as an associate attorney from 1983 to 1987. In 1987, Albee decided to leave Kalled's employ and begin her own law practice. Kalled notified clients that Albee was leaving the practice and gave them the choice of remaining with his firm or separately retaining Albee. Several clients chose to discharge Kalled and retain Albee, including Kenneth and Marguerite Dean (the Deans). In 1985, the Deans had hired Kalled to pursue a personal injury action, and Albee had been given primary responsibility for the case.
The controversy, in this matter, centers around the enforceability of a fee-sharing agreement Kalled gave Albee. The agreement states:
Upon resolution of each case, all outstanding costs will be reimbursed to the respective lawyers and the fees in each case shall be split fifty percent (50%) to James J. Kalled and fifty percent (50%) to Pamela D. Albee. . . . . In the event that any of the above cases need to be tried and . . . Albee requests . . . Kalled to aid in trying said lawsuit and . . . Kalled agrees to so try the case, regarding the above percentages in the division of the fees, Mr. Kalled's percentage goes up and Mrs. Albee's percentage goes down on a basis agreeable to the parties. Although Attorney Albee never signed the agreement, she made payments to Kalled in accordance with it regarding other cases to which it pertained. The trial court found that Albee accepted the contract on its terms through her performance.
In 1994, the Deans settled their case, and Albee received a fee of approximately $60,000. Two years before the settlement in the Dean case, however, this court suspended Attorney Kalled from the practice of law. See Kalled's Case, 135 N.H. 557, 561, 607 A.2d 613, 616 (1992) (holding that Kalled could not practice law and must wait at least five years before petitioning for readmission). Thus, at the time of settlement in the Dean case, Kalled was not entitled to practice law in New Hampshire. Nonetheless, Kalled asserted a right to fifty percent of the fee pursuant to the agreement.
After a trial on the merits, the Superior Court (Nadeau, J.) found in favor of Kalled on the issue of whether he could enforce the agreement against Albee. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Albee contends that: (1) several Rules of Professional Conduct bar payment to Kalled, in part because the Rules of Professional Conduct indicate that the contract is against public policy; (2) Kalled did not complete his obligations under the contract prior to suspension and, therefore, may not collect the fee; and (3) Kalled may recover only under a theory of quantum meruit. We begin by addressing her argument regarding the interplay between the contract and the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The trial court found that Albee accepted the contract Kalled gave her by performance of its terms. A party may accept a contract by performance or conduct. See Tsiatsios v. Tsiatsios, 140 N.H. 173, 178, 663 A.2d 1335, 1339 (1995). The ultimate interpretation of a contract rests with this court as a matter of law, see Baker v. McCarthy, 122 N.H. 171, 174-75, 443 A.2d 138, 140 (1982).
Albee argues that the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit her from sharing any of the fee with Kalled, in part because the rules indi
Page 1 2 3 New Hampshire Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|