This is the second appearance of this case before this Court. In Eichholz Law Firm, P. C. v. Tate Law Group, LLC, 310 Ga. App. 848 714 SE2d 413 2011 Eichholz I, we affirmed the partial grant of summary judgment to defendant Tate Law Group the Tate firm on the suit of plaintiff The Eichholz Law Firm, P. C. the Eichholz firm to enforce fee-splitting agreements arising from the firms’ joint venture to represent clients in oral sodium phosphate OSP product liability actions. In affirming the partial grant of summary judgment, we held that although the Eichholz firm could not enforce the fee-splitting agreements themselves, the Eichholz firm could seek recovery in quantum meruit for services it provided to the Tate firm pursuant to the joint venture. Id. at 853 1. On remand, the Tate firm moved for summary judgment on this issue, arguing inter alia that the Eichholz firm had failed to provide any evidence of the reasonable value of its services. On appeal from the grant of the Tate firm’s motion, the Eichholz firm argues that a question of fact remains on its quantum meruit claim. We disagree and therefore affirm.
As we noted in Eichholz I, Benjamin Eichholz and Mark Tate agreed in February 2009 to provide joint representation to clients in product liability actions involving OSP. In August 2009, however, Benjamin Eichholz was indicted in federal court for various offenses. 310 Ga. App. at 849-450. As a result of Benjamin Eichholz’s indictment, the OSP clients decided to discharge both Eichholz and his firm and to be represented only by Tate and his firm. Id. On remand from our decision affirming the partial grant of summary judgment as to the Eichholz firm’s contract claim, the Tate firm moved for summary judgment on the quantum meruit claim on the grounds that the Eichholz firm had unclean hands, was not entitled to an equal share of any fees because its work was limited to client origination, and had not produced any evidence of reasonable value in support of its claim. The Eichholz firm responded that the Tate firm also had unclean hands and that without the Eichholz firm’s initial work, including the request and review of clients’ medical records, the Tate firm would never have received any portion of the fees eventually collected. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Tate firm on the grounds that the Eichholz firm had failed to show any legal services it provided that would advance the clients’ claim and had failed to notify the clients of any fee-sharing arrangement. This appeal followed.
