Bruce Chasan.

A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a Philadelphia lawyer's suit alleging that Los Angeles litigation boutique Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht acted in bad faith by failing to follow through with a $160,000 settlement in a dispute over attorney fees.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Tuesday affirmed a district court's finding that solo attorney Bruce Chasan failed to adequately allege that he entered into an agreement with litigator John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge to resolve a dispute involving a client who had left Chasan for Pierce.

The central question in the case was whether a months-long email exchange between Chasan and Pierce Bainbridge in which the parties contemplated different settlement ideas constituted a binding agreement in the absence of a formal arrangement.

Like the district court, the Third Circuit said no.

"Chasan's attempt to manufacture a binding agreement by piecing together a series of rejected offers and untimely acceptances finds no support under Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the district court," Third Circuit Judge Kent Jordan wrote in the court's Nov. 26 opinion, joined by Judges Anthony Scirica and Marjorie Rendell.

Chasan is represented by John Cunningham IV of Lamb McErlane in West Chester, who did not respond to a request for comment.

Craig Bolton, who represented Pierce Bainbridge, said, "We're pleased that the Third Circuit has dismissed plaintiffs' attempts to concoct a 'settlement agreement' from a series of rejected offers. We look forward to having this distraction behind us, so we can continue to focus on aggressively litigating on behalf of our clients."

In a complaint filed in December 2018, Chasan contended that former pro footballer and wrestler Lenwood Hamilton engaged him in December 2016 for a lawsuit against Epic Games, Lester Speight and Microsoft. Hamilton had alleged that his likeness and voice were used in the video game "Gears of War," bringing right-of-publicity and other claims.

Chasan's representation of Hamilton was intended to be on a contingency fee basis, the complaint said, except that Hamilton would be required to pay Chasan $450 per hour if he terminated the representation before the underlying litigation resolved.

Chasan looked for a third party to fund the litigation, as Hamilton did not provide enough to pay for all the required expenses, the complaint said. In March 2018, Chasan met Pierce, the complaint said, and he proposed a joint representation agreement.

Chasan, Hamilton and Pierce met March 20 to discuss the joint representation, the complaint said. About a week later, Hamilton terminated Chasan as his lawyer, retaining Pierce instead. The next day Chasan emailed Pierce to say Hamilton was liable for attorney fees to Chasan in the amount of about $320,000.

About a month later, Pierce told Chasan via email that Hamilton was planning to file "'a multimillion-dollar, eight-figure legal malpractice action against you," and suggested they try to reach a settlement. The settlement negotiations began in May, the complaint said, and continued until September.

According to Chasan's suit, he accepted a $160,000 settlement offer via email in September.

But in late October, when Pierce's partner, Jim Bainbridge, sent a final copy of the settlement agreement, it included a change—Hamilton would not be releasing Chasan or his firm from future claims, Chasan's complaint said.

Chasan sent Bainbridge a memo and revised settlement agreement in mid-November, the complaint said, which would remove Hamilton as a party to the agreement. But Pierce and his firm did not accept that proposed settlement, prompting the lawsuit.

As the dispute unfolded, Chasan added the argument that Pierce derailed the settlement so that he could use the $160,000 to fund other cases against video game makers.

Pierce, who was represented by attorneys from Drinker Biddle & Reath as well as a team from his firm, maintained that no enforceable settlement agreement ever existed.

While Chasan himself referred to his release from future claims as an "'essential element'" of a settlement, Jordan said his complaint was "unambiguous that the parties never actually reached agreement about that."

"Pierce's September 10 'offers' contained no mention of releases, including who would be giving or receiving releases and in what capacity," Jordan said. "It was Chasan who, in the September 15 and September 20 communications with Pierce and PBBPH, introduced the idea of Hamilton giving and receiving releases as a party to the settlement agreement. Consequently, neither Chasan's September 15 nor his September 20 communications could have been a binding acceptance of Pierce's September 10 offer. … Equally significant, the draft release that Chasan proposed was never accepted by those he claimed were his counterparties to the settlement agreement."