Law 'Not a Mere Money-Getting Trade': Read Appellate Case on Retainers
This is a lesson all attorneys should keep in mind when preparing fee agreements or devising their billing practices.
September 24, 2018 at 10:30 AM
5 minute read
On Aug. 30, in Balducci v. Cige, the Appellate Division affirmed a Law Division judgment which declared defendant-attorney's retainer agreement with plaintiff “unenforceable and void,” and dismissed his counterclaim for fees and costs. As a result, the attorney's recovery for legal services in representing plaintiff on a claim filed under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) was based on quantum meruit. The court found that the attorney “violated his professional responsibility to explain the Agreement's material terms” so that his client “could make an informed decision about retaining him.” Thus, he “did not explain the effect [the retainer agreement] would have on any recovery” or the “alternatives to such an agreement.” Nor did he tell his client about “the tens of thousands of dollars in expenses she would have to pay as the case progressed.”
Various disputes arose between the parties and when plaintiff terminated the attorney's services for lack of preparation and attention to the matter, he told her that she owed him approximately $250,000 based on his hourly rate and certain other charges about which she had been unaware. The retainer agreement provided that the attorney's fee would be calculated based on one of three methodologies that would yield the highest fee: (1) his $475 hourly rate; (2) a contingent fee equaling 37½ percent of the net recovery, including any attorney fee award; or (3) statutory fees awarded by the court under LAD's fee-shifting provision. Other aspects of the attorney's billing practices were also disturbing. For example, the attorney charged one dollar for every fax and every email he sent in addition to charging for his time, and 25 cents for every page photocopied. One of his bills included $1,700 for emails. Moreover, amazingly, he told his client that he was “padding his bills” so that when the defendants are “found guilty” they will have to pay for it. And the agreement required payment of a percentage of the client's wages for one year upon her reinstatement to her job, if that were the remedy obtained.
Although the Appellate Division found the agreement to be “problematic” because it was “ambiguous if not misleading,” it held it to be unenforceable not because of its questionable provisions but because the attorney had not adequately informed his client about its “ramifications,” a failure that it said was unethical. Thus, the court found that the attorney did not explain that, based on his hourly rate and “liberal billing practices,” his services “could approach or exceed plaintiff's recovery.” Moreover, there was credible evidence that the attorney had told plaintiff “he would not charge her his hourly rate.”
The court's stern rebuke to the attorney and nullification of his fee agreement was influenced by the fact that this was an LAD case, as to which strong policy reasons exist for including fee-shifting in favor of a prevailing plaintiff. As the court explained, the LAD is “remedial social legislation” with a goal of eradicating the “cancer of discrimination.” Toward that end, fee-shifting provisions were included to attract competent counsel “to advance the public interest through private enforcement of statutory rights that the government alone cannot enforce.” The fee-shifting provisions also advance LAD's policy that persons suffering discrimination receive damages because, by shifting payment of counsel fees to a defendant, injured parties' damages are not diminished by having to pay counsel fees. An hourly fee arrangement, said the court, undermines both the LAD policy of compensating victims and the policy of attracting competent counsel—and “can be financially devastating to a client.”
According to the court, most fee agreements in LAD cases do not include an hourly rate component. Thus, the court held that an attorney whose fee in an LAD case includes such component must “explain both the consequences on a recovery and the availability of other competent counsel likely willing to undertake the same representation based on a fee without an hourly component.” Such explanation should include the fact that the fee may approach or exceed the client's recovery, that other attorneys represent clients in similar cases on a contingent fee basis without an hourly component, and that the client may have to advance costs. The court warned that to comply with RPC 1.4(c), examples of such costs in other cases must be included, as must “full and complete disclosure of all charges which may be imposed.”
There can be reasonable debate about the details the Balducci court required in a LAD retainer agreement, especially the requirement to advise about fee practices of other counsel. Moreover, although the court did nullify this fee agreement because the attorney did not explain it sufficiently, we believe that its opinion would have been strengthened by an even stronger finding that the agreement itself was unreasonable and a violation of RPC 1.5(a).
Finally, even though it is an opinion about a case arising under a fee-shifting statute, Balducci v. Cige should be read by lawyers as a more general reminder of ethical obligations related to billing. The ethics implications are nicely highlighted by the court's statements that a “contract for legal services is not like other contracts” since “maximizing fees charged to clients should not be an attorney's primary aim.” Rather, the court warned, an attorney “must never lose sight of the fact that the profession is a branch of the administration of justice and not a mere money-getting trade.” This is a lesson all attorneys should keep in mind when preparing fee agreements or devising their billing practices.
Editorial Board member Harriet Derman recused from this editorial.
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 AllAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readWhere CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute read'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
- 2Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
- 3Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 4People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
- 5How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be a Lawyer First, Foremost and Always,' Says Matthew McLaughlin of Venable
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