Jacobson v. Sassower

• Decision Date: 19 December 1985
• Citation: Jacobson v. Sassower, 66 N.Y.2d 991, 499 N.Y.S.2d 381, 489 N.E.2d 1283 (N.Y. 1985)
• Parties: , 489 N.E.2d 1283 Gerald JACOBSON, Respondent, v. Doris L. SASSOWER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 381

499 N.Y.S.2d 381

66 N.Y.2d 991, 489 N.E.2d 1283

Gerald JACOBSON, Respondent, v.Doris L. SASSOWER, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 19, 1985.

Doris L. Sassower, White Plains, pro se.

Barton Denis Eaton, White Plains, for Doris L. Sassower, appellant.

Gerald Jacobson, pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 107 A.D.2d 603, 483 N.Y.S.2d 711, should be affirmed, with costs.

PlaintiffGerald Jacobson instituted this action to recover a portion of a $2,500 retainer previously paid to defendant, his lawyer in a domestic relations matter, claiming that the sum paid was unearned.Defendant maintains that the $2,500 retainer is nonrefundable.

The payment was made pursuant to a letter agreement, drafted by defendant and executed by both parties shortly after an initial consultation.The agreement provided generally for an hourly charge of $100 to be paid as billed but stated in paragraph 2: "I hereby agree to a non-refundable retainer of $2,500 (which is not to be affected by any possible reconciliation between myself and my wife).Said retainer is to be credited against your charges (receipt of $2,500 being hereby acknowledged)."Plaintiff later discharged defendant without cause following a disagreement concerning whether she, rather than an associate, would represent him at a pending court hearing.Civil Court credited defendant with a maximum of 10 hours work and, relying on the $100 hourly rate stated in the retainer agreement, concluded that the fair value of defendant's services was $1,000 (Jacobson v. Sassower, 113 Misc.2d 279, 286, 452 N.Y.S.2d 981).The judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Term (122 Misc.2d 863, 474 N.Y.S.2d 167) and the Appellate Division(107 A.D.2d 603, 483 N.Y.S.2d 711) which granted leave to appeal to this court.

A party to an action in Small Claims Court may only appeal an adverse decision on the ground that substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (C.C.A.1807).Defendant is unable to prevail on that ground.A client may always discharge his attorney, with or without cause, and in the absence of a contract providing otherwise an attorney discharged without cause is entitled to be compensated in quantum meruit (Martin v. Camp, 219 N.Y. 170, 114 N.E. 46).Because the retainer clause of this agreement is ambiguous, Civil Court properly construed it against defendant and compensated her on an hourly basis.

In cases of doubt or ambiguity, a contract must be construed most strongly against the party who prepared it, and favorably to a party who had no voice in the selection of its language (67 Wall St. Co. v. Franklin Natl. Bank, 37 N.Y.2d 245, 249, 371 N.Y.S.2d 915, 333 N.E.2d 184).Additionally, and as a matter of public policy, courts pay particular attention to fee arrangements between attorneys and their clients (Smitas v. Rickett, 102 A.D.2d 928, 929, 477 N.Y.S.2d 752).An attorney has the burden of showing that a fee contract is fair, reasonable, and fully known and understood by the client (id.;Cohen v. Ryan, 34 A.D.2d 789, 790, 311 N.Y.S.2d 644).As the Appellate Division stated in Smitas v. Rickett(supra), "[e]ven in the absence of fraud or undue influence, an agreement to pay a legal...