OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Megan Barros (“Barros”), now represented by pro bono counsel in this personal injury action, has reached a settlement in principle with Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak (“Amtrak”). Before the Court is the motion of Marc R. Thompson (“Thompson”), Barros’s former attorney of record, seeking to recover from the settlement disbursements and attorneys’ fees pursuant to a charging lien under New York Judiciary Law Section 475. (ECF No. 54-1 3) (the “Fees Motion”). Barros disputes that Thompson is owed any attorneys’ fees because he did not withdraw from her representation for good cause. (ECF No. 59). The Honorable Vernon S. Broderick has referred this dispute to the undersigned for resolution. (ECF No. 57). II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 1. Undisputed facts On April 14, 2017, while Barros was waiting for a train on the Amtrak platform at Penn Station, an Amtrak police officer discharged a taser resulting in a stampede on the platform. (ECF No. 1). Barros was pushed to the ground and sustained injuries to her hip. (Id.) On July 10, 2017, Barros retained the law firm of Pulvers, Pulvers & Thompson LLP (“Pulvers”), of which Thompson is a named partner, on a contingency basis to prosecute a lawsuit for her injuries and agreed to pay Pulvers one third of any recovery in the action (the “Retainer Agreement”). (ECF No. 54-1 at 2). 2. Disputed facts a. Commencing the action Thompson attests that on July 10, 2017, the same day Barros retained Pulvers, his office sent a claim letter to Amtrak seeking disposition of Barros’s claims. (ECF No. 54-1 7). On July 18, 2017, Amtrak responded in writing that it would not honor Barros’s claim because it had determined that “no liability exist[ed] on the part of Amtrak relating to the incident.” (ECF No. 54-4 at 2). Thompson states that between being retained and filing the action, his office conducted extensive investigations, and sought to obtain pertinent medical records and reports of treating physicians. (ECF No. 61 7). Barros attests that on December 18, 2017, after having no substantive contact with Thompson since initially meeting him, she sent him an email asking about her case and did not receive a response. (ECF No. 60 2). On January 31, 2018, more than a month later, she again emailed Thompson requesting an update on her case. (Id.) On March 27, 2018, more than three months after she first sought an update from Thompson, Barros was able to speak to him about commencing a lawsuit against Amtrak. (Id.) On April 3, 2018, nine months after Amtrak responded to Thompson’s letter, Pulvers filed suit against Amtrak in New York State Supreme Court for New York County. (ECF No. 54-1 9). On April 18, 2018, the matter was removed to this Court because suits involving Amtrak, an entity created by Congress (49 U.S.C. § 24101 et seq.), arise under federal law. (ECF No. 1). See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. b. Discovery Over the next 16 months, Thompson alleges that he conducted “voluminous discovery” including the “exchange of documents and medical records” and took the depositions of Barros and the Amtrak officer who discharged the taser. (ECF No. 54-1 11). Barros attests that Thompson did not communicate with her, took minimal discovery, and failed to help her understand her case and options for proceeding. (ECF No. 60 1). Barros alleges that Thompson failed to timely respond to Amtrak’s interrogatories until two days before the deadline to complete depositions. (Id. 5). She avers that due to Thompson’s unnecessary delays, the parties had to request multiple extensions of time, and that her deposition was cancelled three times because Thompson failed to obtain the pertinent medical records. (Id.) Barros states that Thompson spent very little time preparing her for her deposition, and only took one other deposition, of the Amtrak police officer who discharged his taser. (ECF No. 60
6-7). Thompson responds that Barros “got as much as she needed to prepare,” given that the facts of the underlying incident were not in dispute. (ECF No. 61 10). Thompson blames the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship as the reason for not pursuing more discovery. (Id. 11). c. Settlement negotiations Thompson states that soon after the close of depositions, Amtrak make a $17,500 settlement offer (the “First Offer”). (Id. 12). Thompson alleges that he communicated the First Offer and personally advised Barros that he believed he could improve it, but warned her that her claim was limited because Amtrak had determined that its officer acted reasonably in discharging his taser, and that he did not believe they could establish liability based on the crowding on the platform. (ECF No. 54-1 12). Thompson states that Barros rejected the First Offer because she believed her claim to be worth more, and that he told her that she could consult with other counsel if she desired. (Id.) Thompson avers that “at no time did [he] tell Ms. Barros that if she did not accept the settlement [he] would withdraw as her attorney” and that if Barros had chosen to continue to litigate the case he would have done so. (Id. 13). Barros describes a much different version of events. She explains that on May 29, 2019, Thompson sent her an email attaching the transcript of the Amtrak police officer’s deposition with no cover explanatory message. (ECF No. 60 10). She states that when they spoke, Thompson informed her about the First Offer and told her to read the deposition because he thought it would make her settle. (Id.) Barros alleges that on June 3, 2019, Thompson told her that she “needed to take the settlement or find another attorney.” (ECF No. 60 12). Barros states that she spoke with Thompson again on June 5, 2019, at which time he “belittled” her case, berated her, and again told her to take the settlement or find new counsel. (Id. 13). On June 27, 2019, Thompson sent Barros an email asking, “Do you have a new lawyer yet?” (ECF No. 60 15). On July 2, 2019, Barros replied and explained that she was having trouble finding a new lawyer because the date for depositions and documents requests had passed. (Id. 16). In her email Barros acknowledged Thompson’s frustration, but maintained that she still had many questions and needed his assistance. (Id.) On July 3, 2019, Thompson replied to Barros’s email, addressed some of her questions, and then stated “I still believe that you will lose your case and if you don’t get a new lawyer or settle I will make a motion to be relieved from the case.” (ECF No. 60 17). On July 12, 2019, Thomson wrote to Barros and asked, “what is going on with your search for a new lawyer?” (ECF No. 60 19). Barros alleges that Thompson then bullied her in a subsequent call when she tried to ask questions specifically about discovery, and noted that other attorneys she had spoken to believe the case would benefit from additional discovery. (Id.) On July 17, 2019, Barros again emailed Thompson asking if it was possible to request more time for discovery and listed documents still needed from Amtrak. (ECF No. 60 20). Thompson replied, “In my opinion, there is no more discovery needed. Please find a new attorney immediately.” (Id.) Thompson denies that he ever told Barros he would not represent her if she did not accept the offer or that he belittled her case. (ECF No. 61
