Justices Probe Ability to Sue Successor Firms for Quantum Meruit

Can law firms that handed off a case to a successor firm recover its fees from the successor firm under a quantum meruit theory, or does the initiating firm need to sue the client?

That question was squarely before the state Supreme Court Tuesday morning in Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck v. Malone Middleman—a case that could open up quantum meruit liability against successor law firms.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Law Firms Mentioned

<img src="http://www.almcms.com/contrib

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.l.l.c.

/uploads/sites/402/2017/09/judge-and-balance-Article-201406171243-1.jpg" alt="" width="620" height="372" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1351" /> Can law firms that handed off a case to a successor firm recover its fees from the successor firm under a quantum meruit theory, or does the initiating firm need to sue the client? That question was squarely before the state Supreme Court Tuesday morning in <em>Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck v. Malone Middleman</em>��a case that��could open up quantum meruit��liability against successor law firms. According to Meyer Darragh Buckler Bebenek & Eck attorney Scott Millhouse, the answer is simple: If the successor firm benefited from the first firm's work, the quantum meruit claim clearly lies with the successor firm. "There's no dispute that Meyer Darragh did the work on this case for the client that was material to the ultimate result," Millhouse said. "Malone Middleman [the successor firm] knew when it took on attorney [William] Weiler [who originated the case while he worked at Meyer Darragh] that Meyer Darragh expected to be paid for the work we'd done on that case." However, Ray Middleman, former managing partner of Malone Middleman who is now with Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, said the situation is more complicated. The dispute stems from a motor vehicle litigation where Weiler represented an estate involved in the case. Weiler began working on the case while at Meyer Darragh, but later joined Malone Middleman. When he left Meyer Darragh, Weiler agreed the��firm could receive two-thirds of the attorneys fees. The client, however, subsequently retained Weiler again, and, following the change in representation, Malone Middleman contested the fee agreement, arguing it was not bound by the agreement between��Weiler and Meyer Darragh. According to Middleman, the "Middleman firm had also agreed to take a lesser fee from the client because of Meyer Darragh's prior involvement in the case. He argued that Meyer Darragh's claim lay with the client, and that case law from the Superior Court clearly established that initiating firms cannot bring quantum meruit claims against successor firms. However, at least three justices questioned the validity of that case law. Early in the argument session, Justice David N. Wecht asked,��"Why do we rigidly follow that if it doesn't follow equity? Why don't we follow the money?" And later in the session, Justice Christine Donohue also asked,��"How does that make sense if a firm is unjustly enriched?" Middleman maintained that the claim lies with the client, since the settlement is ultimately where the now-disputed money came from, and the initiating firm must protect its interest in the fees. "We cut the fee in consideration of the client's obligation to another firm," Middleman said. Justice Max Baer, however, questioned whether Middleman was raising that issue too late, and Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor said Middleman should be more "worried" about the Supreme Court overruling any hard and fast rule saying successor firms can't be sued on quantum meruit theories. "There's a holding of the intermediate court saying you can never sue a successor firm. Why is that good law?" Saylor asked. Middleman replied again that the burden should be on the client. "Putting the onus on a successor firm, I think is unreasonable," he said, adding that disputes between the firms could also lead to burdensome discovery dispute. Millhouse, however, argued that getting into questions about whether the successor firm reduced its fee should not have any impact on his firm's ability to recover. "To me, it's a simple case. We did the work and we deserve to be paid for it," Millhouse said. "The agreement was the agreement no matter who was handling the case. There's no reason for us to pursue the client. The client paid the entire amount they were required to pay." <em>Max Mitchell can be contacted at 215-557-2354 or [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @MMitchellTLI.</em> <

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.l.l.c.

Trending Stories

New York State Has Issued Nearly 9,800 Felony Charges of Falsifying Business Records Since 2015

New York Law Journal

Manhattan Appeals Court Seats First All-African American Panel for Oral Arguments

New York Law Journal

'Hang Up Your Spurs': Longtime Fox Rothschild Partner Claims Age Discrimination in NJ Lawsuit

New Jersey Law Journal

Making Partner Isn’t What it Used to Be. So What are Young Lawyers in Asia Made Of?

International Edition

The Secret to Growing My Divorce Practice: Writing a Bestseller

The Recorder

People, Places & Profits, Part III: Are Law Firm Financial Metrics Keeping Pace With Inflationary Growth?

People, Places & Profits, Part II: A Look at the Geographic Destinations of the Am Law 200

How Have The Second Hundred Firms Fared Since Outperforming the Am Law 100 Last Year?

Featured Firms

Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates P.C.
75 Ponce De Leon Ave NE Ste 101
Atlanta, GA 30308
(470) 294-1674
www.garymartinhays.com

Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
2 Oliver St #608
Boston, MA 02109
(857) 444-6468
www.marksalomone.com

Smith & Hassler
1225 N Loop W #525
Houston, TX 77008
(713) 739-1250
www.smithandhassler.com

Presented by BigVoodoo

Justices Probe Ability to Sue Successor Firms for Quantum Meruit

Max Mitchell

Thank you for sharing!

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

You Might Like

Talc Plaintiffs Move to Quash Subpoenas as J&J Defends Attorney's Conduct

Judge Reapproves $3.2M Class Counsel Fee Award Thrown Out by 3rd Circuit in Wawa Litigation

See How Pa. Firms Fared in The 2024 Am Law 100 Gross Revenue Ranking

ExxonMobil Argues Co-Defendant's Settlement Barred Claims That Yielded $725M Benzene Verdict

Law Firms Mentioned

Featured Firms

More From ALM

Justices Probe Ability to Sue Successor Firms for Quantum Meruit

Max Mitchell

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

You Might Like

Talc Plaintiffs Move to Quash Subpoenas as J&J Defends Attorney's Conduct

Judge Reapproves $3.2M Class Counsel Fee Award Thrown Out by 3rd Circuit in Wawa Litigation

See How Pa. Firms Fared in The 2024 Am Law 100 Gross Revenue Ranking

ExxonMobil Argues Co-Defendant's Settlement Barred Claims That Yielded $725M Benzene Verdict

Law Firms Mentioned

Trending Stories

Featured Firms

More From ALM

Subscribe to The Legal Intelligencer