Royce v. Michael R. Needle P.C.

Dist. Ct. did not err in overruling defendant-law firm’s objection to different law firm’s petition to adjudicate and enforce its attorney’s lien in amount of $126,663.66, under circumstances where: (1) law firm had represented defendant for three-month period in underlying attorney’s fee dispute arising out of $4.2 million settlement; and (2) basis for law firm’s withdrawal was fact that, unknown to law firm at time it had agreed to represent defendant, defendant had previously given to different law firm security interest in defendant’s interest in recovery of fees from underlying $4.2 million settlement, which was same source of funds that would have been used for payment of instant law firm’s fees. Law firm could properly pursue its claim under quantum meruit theory, where defendant’s contingency agreement with law firm had terminated at time law firm withdrew as counsel for defendant. Moreover, law firm's withdrawal from representing defendant was reasonable, where: (1) law firm was faced with reality that it would not be paid for its continued representation of defendant due to existence of superior security interest in defendant’s interest in fees from underlying $4.2 million settlement; (2) client’s refusal/inability to pay attorney’s fees during course of litigation is good cause to withdraw from case; and (3) defendant never contested law firm’s claim that irreconcilable differences prevented it from continuing its representation of defendant. Also, law firm’s legal services played vital role in defendant’s recovery of fees in underlying $4.2 million settlement.