Royce v. Michael R. Needle P.C.

Dist. Ct. did not err in instant interpleader action in finding pursuant to contingency fee agreement that plaintiff-attorney and defendant-attorney were entitled to only one-third of $4.2 million settlement as attorney's fees in underlying RICO action, where settlement agreement made no mention of attorney’s fees award to said attorneys, and where contingency fee agreement called for said attorneys to receive one-third of settlement proceeds. Moreover, record supported Dist. Ct.’s award of 60 percent of said fees to defendant-attorney and 40 percent to plaintiff-attorney based upon: (1) co-counsel agreement that, in part, proportioned any fee award based on number of hours worked; and (2) defendant’s failure to document time spent on case so as to establish his claim for greater percentage of said fees. Ct. rejected and found frivolous defendant-attorney’s claim that fee award in underlying action should have been $2.5 million based on alleged oral agreement that was separately negotiated and included in $4.2 settlement figure. Too, Dist. Ct. did not err in sanctioning defendant-attorney for raising frivolous claim that fee award should have been $2.5 million, where said claim was made in spite of clear language to contrary in contingency fee agreement, and where there was no mention of alleged $2.5 agreement in settlement award. Dist. Ct. also did not err in sanctioning defendant attorney for vexatious conduct under 28 USC section 1927, where defendant-attorney: (1) caused continuance of hearing, where defendant-attorney sought permission to appear at said hearing, but could not participate due to ambient noise at location where he made said call; (2) filed second amended counterclaim that contained numerous substantive changes in violation of Dist. Ct.’s order; and (3) made last-minute continuance motion, where defendant waited 58 days to make said motion, and where defendant explained that motion was necessary to obtain hearing transcript.