Kizer v. Davis
Decision Date | 16 November 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 2-1275A358,2-1275A358 |
Citation | 369 N.E.2d 439,174 Ind.App. 559 |
Parties | James A. KIZER, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Joyce N. DAVIS, Appellee (Defendant below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Richard T. Heide, Robert L. Bauman, Heide, Gambs & Mucker, Lafayette, for appellant.
Wm. K. Bennett, Bennett, Boehning & Poynter, Lafayette, for appellee.
Attorney James Kizer filed suit against his former client, Joyce Davis, to recover on quantum meruit for legal services rendered.Trial to the court resulted in a judgment in Davis' favor, from which Kizer perfected this appeal.We reverse for the reason that the decision is contrary to law.The trial court's reason for denying recovery is invalid.
The trial judge entered special findings and conclusions, upon his own motion, pursuant to T.R. 52(A).1His "memorandum opinion and judgment" reads as follows:
This is not a case in which we can draw inferences from the record to support the trial court's general finding against Kizer.We must reject, in particular, Davis' contention that the judgment should be affirmed because the evidence most favorable to it sustains the inference that Kizer's services were worth no more than the $350 he was paid.2An affirmance on that basis is precluded by the trial court's contrary finding which specifically states that Kizer would have prevailed on quantum meruit.
Davis would have us disregard this special finding.She cites Hinshaw v. Security Trust Co.(1911)48 Ind.App. 351, 93 N.E. 567, for the proposition that a finding not made at the request of any of the parties but volunteered by the trial court may be disregarded on appeal since it is treated as a general finding, and not a special finding.Although that was the law prior to the adoption of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, current trial practice under T.R. 52 now permits the trial court to make special findings upon its own motion.SeeHunter v. Milhous (2d Dist. 1974) Ind.App., 305 N.E.2d 448, 459.The relevant language in subsection (A) is presented in footnote 1, supra.Subsection (D) similarly contemplates such volunteered findings by providing for "special findings of fact upon less than all the issues in a case when (1) special findings of fact are made but are not required under this rule."The last part of subsection (D) provides further that such "findings of fact with respect to issues upon which findings are not required shall be recognized as findings only upon the issues or matters covered thereby and the judgment or general finding, if any, shall control as to the other issues or matters which are not covered by such findings."See3 Harvey, Indiana Practice, at 424-25.
Bound as we are by the trial court's special findings, we are unable to discern from the opinion a valid reason for awarding Kizer no recovery at all.The trial court explicitly stated that the action on quantum meruit would have been resolved in Kizer's favor but for "other factors which must be considered."These factors fall into two categories: (1) Ethical Consideration 2-23 and (2) those relating to Kizer's representation.
We agree with Kizer's contention that the trial court erroneously applied this Ethical Consideration as a bar to his recovery.3
Ethical Consideration 2-23 is part of the Code of Professional Responsibility which was adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court on March 8, 1971 for attorneys admitted to the bar of this State.The Supreme Court's authority to promulgate rules of legal ethics derives from its plenary power over the admission of attorneys to the practice of law and the supervision of those already admitted.Jurisdiction over these matters is conferred upon the Supreme Court by Article 7, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution which provides "The Supreme Court shall have no original jurisdiction except in admission to the practice of law; discipline or disbarment of those admitted; . . ."
See also, Indiana Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 4(A)(1 and 2);In re Farr (1976) Ind., 340 N.E.2d 777, 780.
Our Supreme Court has stated that although the Code lacks the force and effect of Indiana statutes or case law, it does evidence the proper standard of conduct for the legal profession.In re Kuzman (1975) Ind., 335 N.E.2d 210, 212;Bell et al. v. Conner(1968)251 Ind. 409, 241 N.E.2d 360;Tokash v. State(1953)232 Ind. 668, 115 N.E.2d 745.Specifically, the Code operates as the rule of law in disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Court.It delineates the conduct that will render an attorney subject to censure.As stated in Section 2(a) of Admission and Discipline Rule 23:
"Any conduct that violates the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Code of Judicial Conduct and Ethics heretofore adopted or as hereafter modified by this Court or any standards or rules of legal and judicial ethics or professional responsibility hereafter adopted by this Court shall constitute grounds for discipline. . . ."
This discussion of the Code's authority in disciplinary proceedings brings us now to the issue at bar.Does an Ethical Consideration accompanying the Code have application in a civil suit brought by an attorney to recover his legal fees?
It appears that this precise question has not been subject to judicial resolution.In McInerney v. Massasoit Greyhound Assn., Inc. et al.(Mass.1971), 359 Mass. 339, 269 N.E.2d 211, 220, Ethical Consideration 2-23 was mentioned but only as a cautionary note to the attorney therein whose legal fee was held to be excessive and unreasonable as a matter of law.We have not found a single reported case in which an attorney has been barred from recovering his legal fees because of Ethical Consideration 2-23.
In this and in other jurisdictions, the right of an attorney to recover compensation for his services, either under express contract or on quantum meruit, is well established.E. g., French v. Cunningham et al.(1898)149 Ind. 632, 49 N.E. 797;U. S. Mortgage Co. v. Henderson et al.(1887)111 Ind. 24, 12 N.E. 88;Finney v. Estate of Carter,...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
P.S. by Harbin v. W.S.
...v. Reffeitt (3d Dist.1981) Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 999, Dolph v. Mangus (3d Dist.1980) Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 189; Kizer v. Davis (2d Dist.1977) 174 Ind.App. 559, 369 N.E.2d 439. Moreover, when a trial court makes findings and conclusions, this Court will reverse the judgment if they are clearly......
-
Committee on Legal Ethics of West Virginia State Bar v. Tatterson
...for jurisdictional reasons, 680 F.2d 768 (D.C.Cir.1982); Matter of Mercer, 133 Ariz. 391, 652 P.2d 130 (1982); Kizer v. Davis, 174 Ind.App. 559, 369 N.E.2d 439 (1977); State v. Alvey, 215 Kan. 460, 524 P.2d 747 (1974); Matter of Olkon, 324 N.W.2d 192 (Minn.1982); Matter of Sedor, 73 Wis.2d ......
-
Leibowitz v. Moore
...412 N.E.2d 1237; Farthing v. Farthing (1978), Ind.App., 382 N.E.2d 941; Fox v. Galvin (1978), Ind.App., 381 N.E.2d 103; Kizer v. Davis (1977), Ind.App., 369 N.E.2d 439; Geberin v. Geberin (1977), 172 Ind.App. 255, 360 N.E.2d 41; Wireman v. Wireman (1976), 168 Ind.App. 295, 343 N.E.2d 292; R......
-
Williams v. Graber
...contradict any of the findings made by the trial court by affirming on grounds contrary to such findings." See also Kizer v. Davis (1977), 174 Ind.App. 559, 369 N.E.2d 439. There was no determination made by the trial court that Graber was negligent. We could sustain the trial court simply ......