"We the People" Paralegal Serv. V. Watley

• Decision Date: 25 August 2000
• Docket Number: No. 33,480-CW.,33,480-CW.
• Citation: 766 So.2d 744
• Parties: "WE THE PEOPLE" PARALEGAL SERVICES, L.L.C., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Amy E. WATLEY, Bill Watley, Individually and d/b/a Watley & Watley, Attorneys at Law, Defendants-Applicants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

766 So.2d 744

"WE THE PEOPLE" PARALEGAL SERVICES, L.L.C., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Amy E. WATLEY, Bill Watley, Individually and d/b/a Watley & Watley, Attorneys at Law, Defendants-Applicants.

No. 33,480-CW.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

August 25, 2000.

Roos & Frazier by John M. Frazier Shreveport, Counsel for Applicants.

James W. Spradling, II, Mark D. Frederick, Shreveport, Counsel for Respondents.

Before NORRIS, WILLIAMS, STEWART, GASKINS and CARAWAY, JJ.

STEWART, J.

We granted the application for supervisory writ filed by the defendants, Amy Watley and Bill Watley, individually and doing business as Watley and Watley (the "Watleys"), to review the trial court's denial of an exception of no cause of action asserted in response to an amended petition filed by the plaintiffs, "We The People" Paralegal Services, L.L.C., and Delores Renee Liesmann, individually and as corporate president (hereinafter referred to jointly as "WTP"). We find that it was error for the trial court to deny the exception, and we remand the matter to allow WTP to amend its petition, if possible, to state a cause of action.

FACTS

WTP's original "Petition For Breach Of Contract For Personal Services Rendered And Quantum Meruit" alleged the existence of an oral agreement whereby WTP would provide paralegal services for the Watleys, who are attorneys, in exchange for compensation pursuant to a fee splitting arrangement. Under the alleged fee splitting arrangement, WTP was to be paid either 40 or 60 percent of attorney fees received. Prior to receipt of the attorney fees, WTP would bill the Watleys $75 per hour for work done on the cases. WTP alleged that the Watleys breached the contract by locking them out of the office the parties shared and by refusing to account for or pay the fees earned for services rendered by WTP on a number of cases. WTP prayed for judicial recognition of the oral contract, an order directing payment in accordance with the contract terms, an award of damages for breach of contract, and an award of attorney fees and costs. The petition included no pleadings relating to quantum meruit.

The Watleys responded to the original petition by filing an exception of no cause of action. They asserted that the alleged contract was unenforceable because any work performed by WTP would involve the unauthorized practice of law in violation of La. R.S. 37:212 and 213 and compensation under the contract's fee splitting arrangement would violate Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Louisiana State Bar Association. During arguments on the exception, WTP's counsel conceded the point by stating:

We do concede that an agreement to assist someone to engage in the unauthorized practice of law is void . . . because it is against public policy. And we would be hard pressed to even suggest to the Court that at some point it enforced (sic) that contract, because we know that Court can't do that.

The trial court sustained the exception but granted WTP 15 days to amend its petition to state a cause of action.

In the "First Amended Petition For Breach Of Contract For Personal Services Rendered And Quantum Meruit," WTP restated the same allegations as in the original petition and included the following two additional paragraphs:

XII a.

Between July 15, 1998 and March 12, 1999, plaintiff "WTP" and its employees devoted approximately 3,120 man hours of service to the clients of defendants Watley & Watley, under their direct control and supervision, of which approximately 2,184 man-hours were spent in the performance of services directly related to personal injury clients of defendants. To date, "WTP" has received a total of $4,110.59, representing 40% of attorney fees as previously agreed by the parties ($2,997.21 for the case of Deanna Strasky and two minor children), or 54.81 hours at $75.00 per hour as agreed, leaving a total of 2,129.19 hours uncompensated. Defendants received a substantial benefit from the work of "WTP". "WTP" suffered impoverishment as a consequence of not being paid for the work it had per formed. As a consequence, defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of their failure to compensate "WTP" for work performed on defendant's behalf.

XIII.

The case of Genevieve Smith, a Watley case managed by "WTP", settled in the month of July 1999 for $52,500 which, per the original agreement of the parties was to pay "WTP" 30% of the collected attorney fees of $21,000 ($52,-500 × 40%) or $6,300 (or 84 hours at $75.00 per hour). Failure by defendants to compensate "WTP" for its labor in resolving this case has resulted in unjust enrichment of the defendants at the expense of plaintiff.

WTP reiterated the prayer for relief from the original petition and, as an alternative, prayed that the court find that the Watleys were unjustly enriched at the impoverishment of WTP and order the Watleys to pay the reasonable value of WTP's services in accord with the quantum meruit theory.

In response to this amended petition, the Watleys again filed an exception of no cause of action. They asserted that because the alleged underlying contract involving the sharing of legal fees between attorneys and non-attorneys is unenforceable, WTP cannot state a cause of action by resorting to alternative theories of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment. The trial court denied the exception of no cause of action as to WTP's claims for recovery under theories of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment. The trial court believed that the provision of paralegal services is not repugnant under our law and that if WTP provided such services without compensation, then it may be able to prove entitlement to recovery for such services.

DISCUSSION

The Watleys ask whether WTP may plead as a basis for recovery, under theories of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment, a contract which is null and against public policy, after the trial court determined that such contract was illegal and null. They assert that in granting the first exception of no cause of action filed in response to the original petition, the trial court found that the alleged contract for fee splitting was illegal and a nullity. They argue that since quantum meruit and unjust enrichment are causes of action based on contract, quasi-contract or an implied contract, recovery under these theories is not possible where the underlying contract is illegal.

An exception of no cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the plaintiff is afforded a remedy in law based on the facts alleged. Grocery Supply Company v. Winterton Food Stores, 31,114 (La. App.2d Cir.12/9/98), 722 So.2d 94. The purpose of the exception of no cause of action is not to determine whether the plaintiff will prevail at trial, but is to ascertain if a cause of action exists. Arledge v. Hendricks, 30,588 (La.App.2d Cir.6/26/98), 715 So.2d 135, review denied, 98-2015 (La.11/20/98), 728 So.2d 1287. In determining whether a petition states a cause of action, a court must accept the facts alleged in the petition without reference to any extraneous evidence. La. C.C.P. art. 931; Arledge v. Hendricks, supra. When the grounds upon which the exception of no cause of action is based may be removed by amendment of the petition, the judgment sustaining the exception shall order such amendment within a specified delay. La. C.C.P. art. 934.

Two cases discussed by the Watleys in support of their position are Dugas v. Summers, 339 So.2d 934 (La.App. 4^th Cir. 1976), writ denied, 341 So.2d 1132 (La. 1977) and Crocker v. Levy, 615 So.2d 918 (La.App. 1^st Cir.1993). In Dugas v. Summers, supra, the plaintiff alleged an oral agreement between himself and two attorneys under which the plaintiff would receive one-third of the attorneys' fees in all cases referred to the attorneys by him. The fee-splitting arrangement for referrals was found to be "clearly against public policy" and unenforceable.

In Crocker v. Levy, supra, the plaintiff, an accountant, filed suit to enforce a written contingency fee contract to provide services, including the promise to procure a lawyer, for the purpose of contesting a will. When faced with an exception of no cause and/or no right of action based on La. R.S. 37:213, which prohibits the unauthorized practice of law, the plaintiff amended his petition to allege oral agreements to provide financial services in return for payment. The trial court sustained the exception as to the claim to enforce the written contract but allowed the suit to proceed on the alternative claims to enforce the oral agreements. On summary judgment, the trial court ruled that the oral contracts alleged in the amended petition were the same as the written contract found to be null and void. The oral agreements did not provide a different cause of action, and the basis of the contractual arrangement could not be severed into parts. This ruling was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court determined the words of the written contract to be clear and unambiguous and contrary to La. R.S. 37:213. Because the written contract was a nullity, any other agreement made as a result of the written agreement would likewise be a nullity.

The contracts at issue in the two cases discussed above involved illegal objects, "running" cases in the former and the unauthorized practice of law in the latter. The alleged contractual arrangement in the instant case has as its object the provision of paralegal services. The provision of paralegal services is neither illicit nor immoral. The unlawful aspect of the alleged contract is the method of compensation structured as a fee-splitting arrangement in violation of Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Louisiana State Bar Association. Rule 5.4 provides that a lawyer or law firm may not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except in the enumerated circumstances which do not apply in this instance. La. C.C. art. 2034 provides that...