Fleming v. Campbell, 1372
| Decision Date | 05 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1372,1372 |
| Citation | 537 S.W.2d 118 |
| Parties | Les FLEMING, Appellant, v. James H. CAMPBELL et al., Appellees. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Les Fleming, Houston, for appellant.
Michol O'Connor, Kronzer, Abraham & Watkins, Houston, for appellees Robert Ballard and Kronzer, Abraham & Watkins.
James H. Campbell, Houston, for appellee Campbell.
This is a summary judgment case on an alleged oral contract. Les Fleming, an attorney, sued attorneys James H. Campbell, Robert Ballard, and the law firm of Kronzer, Abraham & Watkins to recover one-half of the attorney's fees paid in a case that was settled for $127,500. Fleming alleged that George Murphy, the claimant in the settled suit, was his client and that he had referred Murphy's case to Campbell, who orally agreed to pay Fleming a referral fee of one-half of the attorney's fees in the case. The trial court granted a summary judgment that Fleming take nothing. We affirm.
Fleming sent Murphy to Campbell in order that Campbell might assess Murphy's cause of action. Fleming alleged that Campbell told him after consulting with Murphy that he, Fleming, would receive a referral fee of one-half of the attorney's fees paid in Murphy's case. Later, Campbell referred Murphy to Ballard, an attorney with the law firm of Kronzer, Abraham & Watkins. Campbell and Ballard agreed to split the attorney's fees in Murphy's case. Fleming claimed that Ballard knew of the alleged referral fee contract between himself and Campbell.
Murphy's case was settled. One-half of the attorney's fees in the case were paid to Campbell, the other half going to Ballard and the law firm of Kronzer, Abraham and Watkins. It is undisputed that Fleming obtained a promise, if any, from Campbell after he had sent Murphy to Campbell and after an attorney-client relationship was created between Murphy and Campbell. Furthermore, Fleming admitted that Murphy was unaware of the fee arrangement he claimed existed between himself and Campbell.
Disciplinary Rule 2--107 of the State Bar Rules provides:
(A) A lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services with another lawyer who is not a partner in or associate of his law firm or law office, unless:
(1) The client consents to employment of the other lawyer after a full disclosure that a division of fees will be made. . . .
State Bar of Texas, Rules and Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2--107 (1973) (located...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hayes, 2012–9
...Lemond v. Jamail , 763 S.W.2d 910, 913–14 [Tex.App.–Houston, 1st Dist. 1988, writ denied] ; Fleming v. Campbell , 537 S.W.2d 118, 119 [Tex.App.–Houston, 14th Dist. 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.] ). "When interpreting and enforcing attorney-client fee agreements, * * * [t]here are ethical consider......
-
Cohen v. Lord, Day & Lord
...rules (see, e.g., Hofreiter v. Leigh, 124 Ill.App.3d 1052, 80 Ill.Dec. 319, 320-322, 465 N.E.2d 110, 111-113; Fleming v. Campbell, 537 S.W.2d 118 [Tex Civ App 1976] [fee-splitting agreements are void as contrary to public policy]; see generally, Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics § 2.6.1, at The ......
-
Bates v. Laminack
...Lemond v. Jamail, 763 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ denied); Fleming v. Campbell, 537 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 9.Kuhn, Collins & Rash v. Reynolds, 614 S.W.2d 854, 857–58 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1981, writ ref'd......
-
Evans & Luptak, PLC v. Lizza
...110 Ill.Dec. 702, 511 N.E.2d 879 (1987); Gorman v. Grodensky, 130 Misc.2d 837, 840-841, 498 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1985); Fleming v. Campbell, 537 S.W.2d 118 (Ct.[Civ.]App.Tex., 1976); see also Leoris v. Dicks, 150 Ill. App.3d 350, 353-354, 103 Ill.Dec. 584, 501 N.E.2d 901 I am not persuaded by plai......
-
Practice Pointer: Fee Splitting and Referral Fees Under the Rules of Professional Conduct
...S.W.2d 910,914 (Tex. Ct. App. 1988) (agreement unenforceable where client never informed of and did not agree to H); Fleming v. Campbell, 537 S.W.2d 118,119 (Tex. Ct. App. 1976) (same); Schniederjon v. Krupa, 514 N.E.2d 1200,1202 (Ill.App.Ct. 1987) (same); In re Kerlinsky, 546 N.E.2d 150, 1......