Anderson v. Kenelly
| Decision Date | 18 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--280,75--280 |
| Citation | 37 Colo.App. 217,547 P.2d 260 |
| Parties | Roberta L. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orville A. KENELLY, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Robert Dunlap, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellee.
Yegge, Hall & Evans, Raymond J. Connell, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Plaintiff, a widow, was successful in her action below against defendant, her former attorney, in a suit to set aside a one-third contingent fee contract. The issues on appeal are whether a contingent fee contract is subject to the scrutiny of a court, and if so, whether, under the facts of this case, the court properly concluded that the contract was unconscionable. We conclude that under its general supervisory powers over attorneys as officers of the court, a court may scrutinize a contingent fee contract, and that the court's findings of fact which led it to nullify this contract are amply supported by the evidence. Hence, we affirm the judgment.
The relevant facts are these: Plaintiff's husband was insured under his employer's group life insurance policy which afforded coverage for accidental death. The policy contained a clause which provided that coverage would continue for a period of 31 days after termination of employment or enlistment in the military service, whichever first occurs.
On June 22, 1971, plaintiff's husband enlisted in the Air Force, and on July 22, 1971, 30 days later, he was killed in an automobile accident. Plaintiff recalled the date of enlistment as having been on June 20, 1971, 32 days prior to the date of her husband's death. The widow sought the assistance of the judge advocate's office to attempt to collect the proceeds of the subject insurance policy, as well as two other policies on his life. Basing its conclusion on the erroneous date of enlistment, it advised plaintiff that it could not collect the death benefits and that a civilian attorney should be retained. The widow then sought the help of the defendant-attorney.
At the time of their initial discussion, the parties assumed the date of enlistment to have been June 20, 1971, beyond the 31 day extended coverage term of the policy. Defendant testified that he gave her the option of either a one-third contingent fee contract or a rate of $30 an hour for his time. She denied that the hourly rate was ever mentioned to her.
After discussing the matter with others, the widow told the attorney to proceed on a contingent fee basis. The attorney then proceeded to negotiate with the insurance company and immediately discovered the correct date of enlistment. One week after being furnished with the correct date of enlistment, the company paid to the attorney the sum of $26,373, the amount due under the policy, of which he retained for himself one-third or $8,791.08. This suit followed.
The trial court determined that, because of insufficient information available to him, the attorney could not offer plaintiff a viable alternative to the contingent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Morton
...by the client's insurer. The public should not be subjected to such overreaching by the legal profession. See Anderson v. Kenelly, 37 Colo.App. 217, 547 P.2d 260, 261 (1976) ("Caveat emptor is not a legal maxim attributable to the attorney-client relationship."). Nor should the legal profes......
-
City of Wheat Ridge v. Cerveny
...order to review their contingent arrangements, Bryant v. Hand, 158 Colo. 56, 60, 404 P.2d 521, 523 (1965) and Anderson v. Kenelly, 37 Colo.App. 217, 218, 547 P.2d 260, 261 (1975). In Bryant, an action brought by an attorney against his client to enforce the terms of a contingent fee agreeme......
-
People v. Martinez, 07CA0087.
...is subject to this court's supervisory authority granted by Colorado Constitution Article VI, section 2(1)."); Anderson v. Kenelly, 37 Colo.App. 217, 218, 547 P.2d 260, 261 (1975) (noting a trial court's "general supervisory power over attorneys as officers of the court ... [to] scrutinize ......
-
Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Gallaher
...are grossly disproportionate to the fee. E.g., Matter of Swartz, 141 Ariz. 266, 686 P.2d 1236 (1984) (en banc); Anderson v. Kenelly, 37 Colo.App. 217, 547 P.2d 260 (1975); In re Kennedy, 472 A.2d 1317 (Del.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1205, 104 S.Ct. 2388, 81 L.Ed.2d 346 (1984); The Florida Ba......
-
Conflicts in Settlement of Personal Injury Cases
...the Colorado Supreme Court, October 23, 1979, effective January 1, 1980. 12. See DR 2-106 and EC 2-20; see also, Anderson v. Kenelley, 37 Colo.App. 217, 547 P.2d 260 (1975). 13. See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kornbluth, 28 Colo.App. 194, 471 P.2d 609 (1970). 14. Id. at 611: "The decisio......
-
Estate and Trust Forum
...of Colorado, Inc. and Probate and Trust Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association, 1974. 11. Anderson v. Kenelly, 37 Colo. App. ___, 547 P.2d 260 (1975). 12. 57 A.L.R.3d 475. 13. 58 A.L.R.3d 317. This column is prepared by the Probate and Trust Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association ......
-
Legal Malpractice Forum
...Footnotes: 1. Sternn and Hutzler, "Attorneys' Malpractice Prevention Manual" (1978), 37, 38. 2. Anderson v. Kenelly, 37 Colo. App. 217, 547 P.2d 260 (1976). 3. Hansen v. Wightman, 14 Wash. App. 78, 538 P.2d 1238 (1975). 4. Hodges v. Carter, 239 N.C. 517, 80 S.E.2d 144 (1954). 5. Eadon v. Re......
-
The New Rules of Professional Conduct: Significant Changes for In-house Counsel - November 2007 - Professional Conduct and Legal Ethics
...See also Youngblood v. Higgins, 303 P.2d 637 (Cal.App. 1957). 6. E.g., People v. Nutt, 696 P.2d 242 (Colo. 1984); Anderson v. Kenelly, 547 P.2d 260 (Colo.App. 1975). 7. E.g., American Bar Association (ABA) Formal Opinion 93-379 (1993). 8. Texas Ethics Opinion 531 (1999) discusses the plan o......