In a dispute over attorney fees, the New Jersey Appellate Division sided with the former clients of a law firm, affirming a trial court order that an oral contingency fee agreement was unenforceable pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(c).

The boutique firm, Platt Law Group, filed suit against former clients James and Jacquelyn Tricolli for legal fees allegedly incurred in an underlying lawsuit filed against Shamrock Moving and Storage for damage to their furniture and home. The Tricollis won a final judgment against Shamrock for $23,298.39, including $8,591.34 in attorney fees, according to the per curiam opinion.

However, the judgment was never collected because Shamrock ceased operations.

At the time of the lawsuit, the law firm was known as Platt & Riso, and the Tricollis were represented by one of the firm's partners, Eric Riso, who was also James Tricolli's best friend. Stuart A. Platt brought this claim, The Platt Law Group v. Tricolli, on behalf of his firm in February 2023, according to the opinion.

The Appellate Division panel included Judges Lisa Rose and Lisa Perez Friscia.

At a one-day bench trial, Platt admitted he could not find a fee agreement for the Tricolli case, but said he believed there was an understanding for hourly fees on the case. He also testified that Riso's attorney fee certification in the case included billable litigation hours and rate, which demonstrated that an hourly fee agreement existed, according to the opinion.

"Further, Platt acknowledged that 'without a contingency fee agreement in writing,' any fee collection would be through quantum meruit," the opinion said. "He admitted there was no evidence defendants promised to pay for the legal services rendered, but argued the facts demonstrated plaintiff's entitlement to recover attorney's fees under quantum meruit for the services rendered."

James Tricolli, who appeared pro se in this case, testified that he had a verbal agreement with Riso for representation and the attorney agreed to represent them free of charge. The client said that quantum meruit was inapplicable because Platt had no expectation of compensation since Riso agreed to only get paid if James Tricolli did too, according to the opinion.

The trial judge issued an oral decision that found no cause of action because Platt failed to satisfy his burden of proof. The judge also found that an oral contingency fee agreement existed between James Tricolli and Riso and that it was unenforceable because it was required to be in writing, according to the opinion.

"Finally, the judge declined to award plaintiff fees under unjust enrichment or quantum meruit because defendants 'received nothing' from the underlying litigation," the opinion said. "On appeal, plaintiff contends reversal is warranted because the judge erred in: analyzing its quantum meruit claim; finding no hourly fee agreement; and failing to award fees under a breach of contract, quantum meruit, or unjust enrichment."

The plaintiff accurately stated that, in certain circumstances, an attorney without a written fee agreement may be entitled to quantum meruit damages from a client. However, the appeals court said, those circumstances do not exist here.

"The record amply supports the judge's finding that a contingency fee agreement existed with the condition that 'if there was a recovery from Shamrock, the firm would get paid," the opinion said. "Further, the record supports the judge's finding that 'Riso's certification does not establish' an hourly fee agreement."

The appeals court found that the trial judge correctly found that the oral contingency fee agreement was unenforceable pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(c) and that based on the terms of the contingency fee agreement, the attorney fees were recoverable only from Shamrock. Therefore, Platt could have no expectation of an hourly fee award under quantum meruit. For the same reasons, the appeals court found that Platt's unjust enrichment claim failed.

"The writing requirement's purpose to avoid misunderstanding is well illustrated here," the opinion said. "As the judge found, the situation was 'very unfortunate' for plaintiff and defendants, as both suffered 'damages.' Plaintiff, however, failed to meet its burden of substantiating the attorney's fees demanded against defendants under the breach of contract or quasi-contract theories."

A request for comment from Platt was not immediately returned.