Justice Manuel Mendez
Lewis’ former counsel, Cardalli, moved for a hearing to enforce a charging lien, alleging he was entitled to a percentage of the fee. Lewis’ current attorney, Slater, claimed Cardalli was not entitled to anything as Lewis discharged him for cause, which Cardalli disputed. The court noted that Cardalli’s charging lien was not extinguished by the substitution of a new attorney. It stated on substitution, all that a former attorney is entitled to is a lien on proceeds of the action in an amount representing the “reasonable value” of his services as of the date when he is superceded by a new attorney. The court concluded that where a client attributes the decision to discharge an attorney to billing problems, as here, without any showing the attorney violated a legally or professionally imposed duty, an attorney is not discharged for cause and did not forfeit its fee. As Slater did not provide a sufficient basis for the court to determine Cardalli was discharged for cause, the petition was granted, and the matter was set down for a hearing to determine the amount of the contingent percentage Cardalli was entitled to receive from the gross legal fees based on the proportionate share of the work he performed.
