Fee-Sharing Agreement Between Personal Injury Firms Ends in Litigation
The Fort Lee law firm claims Seigel Law breached a 2010 written case-sharing agreement, which called for the Lee firm to receive up to 30 percent of legal fees collected.
November 12, 2018 at 03:47 PM
4 minute read
A legal battle has erupted between two Bergen County personal injury firms over the alleged breach of an agreement to pay referral fees for cases that were shared.
The Fort Lee firm headed by Jae Lee claims in a lawsuit that it had a written agreement in 2010 with the Ridgewood firm now known as Seigel Law for referral of personal injury cases. The terms call for the Seigel firm to pay Lee's firm up to 30 percent of its fees from cases it received, the suit claims.
What's more, the agreement stated that if the Seigel firm were discharged or if any file were transferred to another firm, Lee was to be apprised of the change and Seigel would advise any superseding lawyer of the financial obligation to Lee, the suit claims. Lee also provided the Seigel firm a list of all cases that were subject to the agreement.
But Seigel allegedly charged inflated or improper expenses in some cases referred by the Lee firm, reducing the legal fee owed, the suit claims. And the Seigel firm notified Lee's firm that one referred case was dismissed, but failed to disclose that the case was taken over by another lawyer. The new lawyer obtained a favorable result and billed roughly $140,000 for the case.
Seigel allegedly breached the referral contract by failing to advise superseding counsel of the Lee firm's contractual right to a 20 percent lien on the fee collected in that case, the lawsuit claims.
That case was brought on behalf of Kevin Killeen, a Newark firefighter who was awarded $2.3 million in a suit against a property owner in connection to an on-the-job injury.
In addition, many of the cases covered by the agreement are auto injury cases, which were settled. A significant number of those cases resulted in subsequent claims for uninsured or underinsured defendants, which caused the defendants to receive additional fees following their resolution. But Lee's firm has not received its share of the additional fees from those cases despite various requests, the lawsuit claims.
The suit brings claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of the covenant of good faith, breach of implied and express contract, conversion, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel. The lawsuit seeks an accounting of all files that Lee referred to the Seigel firm under the parties' agreement and appointment of a fiscal agent to review the defendant's books and records. The suit seeks an order that defendants pay the cost of the fiscal agent, as well as damages and attorney fees and costs.
Lee filed the suit on Nov. 5 in Bergen County Superior Court. Seigel Law and Jan Seigel, its managing partner, are the defendants.
The agreement between the firms was reached after attorney Edward Capozzi, who once practiced at Lee's firm, left to join Seigel's firm, taking roughly 100 files with him. When Capozzi made that move, his new firm changed its name from Seigel & Seigel to Seigel Capozzi.
Seigel and Lee held a meeting in August 2010 to discuss the transfer of Capozzi's personal injury cases to Seigel. After the meeting, Lee sent Seigel a letter to memorialize the terms agreed to, according to the lawsuit. Seigel sent a confirmation letter on receiving Lee's letter, the suit said. The Seigel firm has periodically made payments to Lee's firm over the years.
Capozzi left Seigel's firm with three other attorneys in July 2016 to join Brach Eichler in Roseland.
Capozzi declined to comment on the dispute other than to say he was not involved in administration of the fee-sharing deal.
Barry Epstein of the Epstein Law Firm in Rochelle Park, who represents Lee, declined to comment on the case when reached Monday. Seigel did not return a call requesting comment.
Lee's firm lists five attorneys on its website. Seigel's firm lists 10 attorneys.
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 AllOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readConstruction Worker Hit by Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute readEagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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