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
© 2024 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 AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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