Litigation: Resolving fee disputes before things get ugly
On November 6, 1906, attorney Albert Sillers was busy working in his office in Washington, D.C.
July 18, 2013 at 05:15 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
On November 6, 1906, attorney Albert Sillers was busy working in his office in Washington, D.C. Shortly after noon that day, iron worker and former police officer Thomas Reidy quietly entered Sillers' office, rawhide horsewhip in hand, and began lashing the lawyer, administering what a newspaper account of the incident described as “terrible punishment.” A dozen or more people witnessed the assault, which left Sillers with a gash on his chin that stretched nearly from ear to ear.
Reidy was angered by Sillers' refusal to return a disputed $50 legal fee to his wife, Mrs. Reidy. Mrs. Reidy had retained Sillers two months earlier to bring a suit in equity to partition property left to Mrs. Reidy and her brother by their mother. The Reidys believed that another lawyer had done the actual work and wanted Sillers to return the money, which he refused to do. Sillers' understated reaction to the assault was, “I see no reason for Mr. Reidy's actions in this matter.”
Fortunately, today we have better ways to resolve fee disputes with clients.
On June 20, 2012, the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Client Protection published a chart that lists the 12 jurisdictions that have mandatory fee arbitration. Those jurisdictions are: Alaska, California, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and Wyoming. A review of three of these programs is useful.
According to a podcast on the California Bar's mandatory fee arbitration program website , the program resolves approximately 2,000 fee disputes per year. Most fee dispute arbitrations are conducted through the local bar associations. Both the attorney and the client have the right to file for arbitration, and the attorney must participate if the client requests it. The arbitration covers issues pertaining to unpaid fees or whether an attorney must refund the client for fees that have already been paid. A client may proceed pro se at the arbitration or may hire an attorney. The average hearing is 3-4 hours, and the arbitrator will issue an award within 30 days. The loser does not pay the winner's legal fees incurred in the arbitration.
In the District of Columbia, the Attorney/Client Arbitration Board (ACAB) of the D.C. Bar resolves fee disputes between bar members and their clients. As with California, the attorney must participate in the arbitration if the client requests it. The fee arbitration may resolve the dispute within 120 days of the ACAB's receipt of agreements to arbitrate that are signed by both parties. The parties receive the rules of procedure that will govern the arbitration, and those rules are consistent with D.C. law concerning arbitrations. The ACAB's award is binding on the parties. While there is no appeal process within the ACAB, the aggrieved party has a limited right of appeal to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. However, it is difficult to get that court to vacate or modify an award. Additional information on D.C.'s program can be found at the D.C. Bar's website.
The North Carolina State Bar's Fee Dispute Resolution Program is available to attorneys and clients who disagree on a fee issue. As with other jurisdictions, the disputes include both unpaid fees and fees the client believes should be refunded. An attorney must notify the client of the fee dispute resolution program at least 30 days prior to filing a suit for the unpaid fees. An unpaid fee is assumed to be disputed unless the client affirms its existence orally or in writing, or if the client pays the fee by a check that is subsequently returned for insufficient funds. Information about the Fee Dispute Resolution Program can be found at the North Carolina State Bar's website.
Many other states have voluntary programs to resolve fee disputes. Depending on the jurisdiction, attorneys may include mandatory arbitration clauses in retainer agreements. Check with your local bar for the options in your jurisdiction. I am sure that attorneys and clients alike would rather resolve fee disputes as quickly as possible without the headaches of litigation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readIn-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
SEC Ordered to Explain ‘How and When the Federal Securities Laws Apply to Digital Assets’
5 minute readMeta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
Trending Stories
- 1Newsmakers: Former Pioneer Natural Resources Counsel Joins Bracewell’s Dallas Office
- 2Quiet Retirement Meets Resounding Win: Quinn Emanuel Name Partner Kathleen Sullivan's Vimeo Victory
- 3Avoiding the Great Gen AI Wrecking Ball: Ignore AI’s Transformative Power at Your Own Risk
- 4A Lesson on the Value of Good Neighbors Amid the Tragedy of the LA Fires
- 5Change Is Coming in the Trump Era. For Big Law, Change Is Already Here
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250