Jacobson v. Sassower
| Decision Date | 19 December 1985 |
| Citation | 66 N.Y.2d 991,499 N.Y.S.2d 381,489 N.E.2d 1283 |
| Parties | , 489 N.E.2d 1283 Gerald JACOBSON, Respondent, v. Doris L. SASSOWER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 107 A.D.2d 603, 483 N.Y.S.2d 711, should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff Gerald 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: 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)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hatco Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co. Conn.
...most strongly against the drafter when the other party has had no voice in the preparation. Jacobson v. Sassower, 66 N.Y.2d 991, 499 N.Y.S.2d 381, 382, 489 N.E.2d 1283, 1284 (1985). By contrast, a release is construed most strongly against the releasor. Mt. Read Terminal, Inc. v. LeChase Co......
-
Joint Venture Asset Acquisition v. Zellner
...of the loan proceeds, which must be construed "strongly against" First City as its drafter as required by Jacobson v. Sassower, 66 N.Y.2d 991, 499 N.Y.S.2d 381, 489 N.E.2d 1283 (1985), where the Court of Appeals In cases of doubt or ambiguity, a contract must be construed most strongly agai......
-
Brown Media Corp. v. K & L Gates, LLP
...122 Misc. 2d 863 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983), aff'd , 483 N.Y.S.2d 711, 107 A.D. 2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983), aff'd , 489 N.E.2d 1283, 66 N.Y.2d 991, 499 N.Y.S.2d 381 (N.Y. 1985). "A fiduciary relationship arises between two persons when one of them is under a duty to act for or to give advice fo......
-
In re McDonald Bros. Const., Inc.
...aff'd, 122 Misc.2d 863, 474 N.Y.S.2d 167 (N.Y.App. Term 1983), aff'd, 107 A.D.2d 603, 483 N.Y.S.2d 711, aff'd. 66 N.Y.2d 991, 499 N.Y.S.2d 381, 489 N.E.2d 1283 (1985) ("Payment of a preliminary fee may be made solely to receive whatever professional services a client may request during a fi......
-
How To Lose Your Legal Fee, Part 1: Excessive Fees
...known and understood by their clients." Shaw v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 N.Y.2d 172, 176 (1986), (citing Jacobson v. Sassower, 66 N.Y.2d 991, 993, Procedural Unconscionability The New York Court of Appeals has recognized two types of unconscionability relating to fee agreements. ......
-
Legal Ethics - Jack L. Sammons
...Id. 117. Id. 118. Id. 119. See generally charles w. wolfram, modern legal ethics 209-23 (1986). See also e.g., Jacobson v. Sassower, 489 N.E.2d 1283 (N.Y. 1985). 120. 264 Ga. at 353, 444 S.E.2d at 316. 121. 209 Ga. App. at 382, 433 S.E.2d at 433. 122. Id. 123. Id. Of course, the court of ap......
-
IndeX.
...N.Y.2d 188 (2001); Meyer v. Price, 250 N.Y. 370 (1929). 390. Miller v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 40 N.Y.2d 675 (1976). 391. Jacobson v. Sassower, 66 N.Y.2d 991 (1985). 392. See infra Chapter XIII.H.5.g. 393. O’Neil Supply Co. v. Petroleum Heat & Power Co., 280 N.Y. 50 (1935). 394. Morgan v. Herzog, ......
-
Appendix V
...(“we recognize advance payment retainers as one of three retainers available to lawyers and their clients”). [580] Jacobson v. Sassower, 66 N.Y.2d 991, 993, 489 N.E.2d 1283, 1284, 499 N.Y.S.2d 381, 382 (1985); see N.Y. State 599 (“the essence of the matter is clarity”). [581] DR 9-102(C)(3)......
-
V.31. G. Construction Against The Draftsman
...subsequent dispute, the rule of construction against the draftsman shall not be applied.” 392 --------Notes:[391] Jacobson v. Sassower, 66 N.Y.2d 991 (1985).[392] See infra Chapter...