Work-Sharing Arrangement Goes Wrong for 2 Lawyers, Now Fighting Over Fees

A work-sharing arrangement between a New York City lawyer and another from New Jersey has broken down amid accusations of fraud and exploitation.

In 2020, Morristown, New Jersey, lawyer Bruce Baldinger sought help from Andrew Mancilla of New York on a few litigation matters, but a dispute later erupted over what portion of the fees Mancilla should receive.

In July, Baldinger filed a declaratory judgment action against Mancilla in Morris County Superior Court, seeking to enforce an agreement setting Mancilla’s pay rate.

And on Aug. 23, Mancilla, of the firm of Mancilla & Fantone, filed his own action in federal court in Newark, accusing Baldinger of breach of contract.

Mancilla and Baldinger were family friends who formed an agreement giving one-third of the fees generated to the attorney originating the work, one-third to Baldinger’s firm for overhead and administration and the last third to the attorney working on the case, according to Baldinger’s suit.

In one such case, where Mancilla had assumed responsibility for an employment-discrimination suit on behalf of Baldinger’s client, the opposing party moved for summary judgment. With the deadline for a motion in opposition drawing close, and Baldinger away on a vacation in Italy, Mancilla told him in a text message that he wanted his cut of attorney fees raised to 75%, Baldinger claims in court papers.

Baldinger, unable to address the motion from Europe and seeking to put the client’s needs first, reluctantly agreed to the fee increase, according to his complaint. Mancilla completed his opposition reply and the case was not dismissed.

Later, Baldinger spoke to the client about settling the case and reducing his contingency fee to encourage settlement. When Mancilla learned of this, he became angry, and emailed profanities and invectives at Baldinger, according to Baldinger’s court papers. Baldinger also claimed he learned Mancilla had been contacting the client directly, allegedly denigrating him and attempting to gain other work from the client. Baldinger then terminated his working relationship with Mancilla, according to court papers.

Mancilla, for his part, said in his complaint that he put more than 300 hours of work into the case. Mancilla added that before he got involved, Baldinger had sat on the case for nine months before filing a complaint, which put the case at risk of dismissal based on the statute of limitations. “Baldinger’s oversight was egregious,” Mancilla said in his complaint.

Mancilla also said a review of Baldinger’s papers opposing dismissal of the case showed he ”conducted virtually no research into the law, misunderstood the issue, ignored the evidence, and failed to assert key arguments.” After obtaining an extension to file new opposition papers, Mancilla “worked tirelessly day in and day out to save the client’s case. He conducted dozens of hours of deep dive legal research to protect the client’s interests and redrafted virtually all of Baldinger’s opposition papers,” according to Mancilla’s complaint. It was at this time that Mancilla asked to have his share of legal fees in the case increased to 75%, he said. Baldinger agreed to that demand, Mancilla said.

Later, Mancilla’s opposition papers prevailed and the defendant’s motions for summary judgment were denied based on Mancilla’s arguments, the suit said. Soon thereafter, the defendant offered to settle for $500,000, then for $1 million. Ultimately, an offer of $1.63 million was accepted by the plaintiff.

During these negotiations, Baldinger, without consulting Mancilla, agreed with the client to cap the entire legal fee at $200,000, plus half of any amount obtained over $1.5 million, Mancilla said in court papers.

Under Baldinger’s original fee agreement, the $1.63 million settlement would yield a legal fee of $541,125, and Mancilla would receive $405,843 under the agreement giving him a 75% cut. But under Baldinger’s modified fee agreement, the new fee for the $1.63 million settlement would come to $275,000 and Mancilla’s 75% cut would come to $206,250.

Ultimately, Mancilla said he would not do any more work for Baldinger, and when Baldinger received his attorney fee from the case, he did not pay any portion of it to Mancilla, according to Mancilla’s suit. Baldinger’s declaratory judgment suit against Mancilla contains numerous misstatements, according to Mancilla’s suit.

Baldinger did not respond to a phone message about the case. His attorney, Paul Perkins, of The Perkins Firm in Jersey City, declined to comment.