McCarthy v. Santangelo
| Decision Date | 09 January 1951 |
| Citation | 137 Conn. 410,78 A.2d 240 |
| Parties | McCARTHY v. SANTANGELO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
William L. Hadden, New Haven, with whom were James O. Shea, New Haven, and, on the brief, Clarence A. Hadden, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).
William B. Fitzgerald, Waterbury, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
O'SULLIVAN, Judge.
This action was brought to recover the reasonable value of legal services. The facts are not in dispute.
The plaintiff is an attorney at law. On March 15, 1946, he was engaged by the defendant to institute a divorce action on her behalf and to take steps to safeguard the financial interests of herself and her children. It was agreed that his compensation would be one-third of any alimony which the court might award. The plaintiff first attempted, by conferring with the defendant's husband, to effect a reconciliation. The effort was unsuccessful. It was not until August 26 that the plaintiff brought the divorce action. Just prior to that time, the defendant had authorized him to obtain associate counsel. On January 10, 1947, she terminated the employment of both attorneys. She has already paid the plaintiff $1500. During the period of their employment, the attorneys performed for her various legal services not directly concerned with the divorce action. The reasonable value of all services rendered was $3250, and cash expenditures made by the plaintiff and his associate were $539.54. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff to recover the amount of the expenditures plus the unpaid balance of the reasonable value of the services, with interest from the date of demand. The defendant has appealed. In our discussion of the case, we call attention to the fact that the rights and obligations of the parties are determined in the light of the facts which the court expressly found, and we do not resort to other facts, extraneous to the record, which the plaintiff, in a motion for reargument has asked us to accept.
The plaintiff concedes, as indeed he must, that his agreement to accept one-third of an award of alimony as compensation for his services was void as against public policy. The state does not favor divorces. Dennis v. Dennis, 68 Conn. 186, 197, 36 A. 34, 34 L.R.A. 449. Its policy is to maintain the family relation as a life status. Swist v. Swist, 107 Conn. 484, 489, 140 A. 820; Morehouse v. Morehouse, 70 Conn. 420, 426, 39 A. 516. The vice of an agreement like that into which the plaintiff entered lies in the strong inducement which it offers to an attorney to ignore the possibility of reconciliation and to press, for personal gain, the dissolution of a marriage which patience and effort might salvage. Such agreements may thus thwart public policy. They are illegal and void by a unanimity of authority. McConnell v. McConnell, 98 Ark. 193, 198, 136 S.W. 931, 33 L.R.A.,N.S., 1074; Newman v. Freitas, 129 Cal. 283, 289, 61 P. 907, 50 L.R.A. 548; Barngrover v. Pettigrew, 128 Iowa 533, 535, 104 N.W. 904, 2 L.R.A.,N.S., 260; Dannenberg v. Dannenberg, 151 Kan. 600, 603, 100 P.2d 667; Jordan v. Westerman, 62 Mich. 170, 180, 28 N.W. 826; Klampe v. Klampe, 137 Minn. 227, 231, 163 N.W. 295; Van Vlerk v. Van Vleck, 21 App.Div. 272, 274, 47 N.Y.S. 470; Opperud v. Bussey, 172 Okl. 625, 630, 46 P.2d 319; note, 30 A.L.R. 188, 191.
Although recognizing the invalidity of the express agreement for compensation, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff to recover on quantum meruit. There is a well-recognized distinction between a case where an agreement with an attorney is illegal because the services he undertakes to perform are unlawful and one where, though the services are lawful, the method of compensating the attorney is illegal. It is the plaintiff's claim that his agreement with the defendant falls within the latter category.
The court relied on McKnight v. Gizze, 119 Conn. 251, 175 A. 676. In that case we held that an attorney who procured from an ignorant and frightened client, indicted for murder, a mortgage to ensure the payment of his fee--a mortgage which was thereafter judicially declared invalid--could recover on quantum meruit for the reasonable value of his services. The opinion, 119 Conn. at page 256, 175 A. at page 678, quoted with approval an excerpt from Baca v. Padilla, 26 N.M. 223, 230, 190 P. 730, 11 A.L.R. 1188:
In the McKnight case, the mortgage had been declared invalid under the equitable principle that an attorney will not be permitted to take an unconscionable advantage of his client. McKnight v. Gizze, 107 Conn. 229, 234, 140 A. 116. The invalidity of the plaintiff's agreement for compensation arose from the possible adverse effect his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mckenna v. Delente., Nos. 28681, 29433.
...that the defense of unconscionability may be maintained by way of a general denial. Instead, the defendant cites McCarthy v. Santangelo, 137 Conn. 410, 414, 78 A.2d 240 (1951), for the proposition that the defense of contract illegality need not be pleaded specially. In McCarthy, our Suprem......
- Bedrick v. Bedrick
-
Alan E. Silver, P.C. v. Jacobs
... ... v. Zeller, 228 Conn. 206, 231, 635 A.2d 798 (1994), citing Smith v. Crockett Co., 85 Conn. 282, 287, 82 A. 569 (1912); McCarthy v. Santangelo, 137 Conn. 410, 412, 78 A.2d 240 (1951). Section 52-251c "was intended to [43 Conn.App. 190] regulate the attorney-client relationship ... ...
-
Konover Development Corp. v. Zeller, 14732
...contract provisions that violate public policy. Smith v. Crockett Co., 85 Conn. 282, 287, 82 A. 569 (1912); McCarthy v. Santangelo, 137 Conn. 410, 412, 78 A.2d 240 (1951). We are not persuaded, however, that this partnership agreement, which granted the general partner sole discretion to de......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...Mayor v. Biafore, Florek & O'Neill, 245 Conn. 88 (1998) 9-4:3.4 Mazzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490 (1987) 10-3 McCarthy v. Santangelo, 137 Conn. 410, 78 A.2d 240 (1951) 1-6:2.1 McConnell v. McConnell, 316 Conn. 504 (2015) 1-7:1.4, 1-7:3.3 McCullough v. Waterside Associates, 102 Conn. App. 23 (......
-
CHAPTER 1 - 1-6 FEES
...for prohibition of contingent fees in family matters in Olszewski v. Jordan, 315 Conn. 618, 632-34 (2015). [142] McCarthy v. Santangelo, 137 Conn. 410, 412, 78 A.2d 240, 241 (Conn. 1951).[143] Disciplinary Counsel v. Cohen, 2010 WL 5158379 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 3, 2010). Note, however, tha......
-
Professional Responsibility Review 2010
...after discussion with you. It cannot be imposed unless you agree to it." Id. at *2. 86. See CONN. Gen. Stat.§ 1-2z. 87. 137 CONN. 410, 78 A.2d 240 (1951). 88. Cohen, 2010 WL 5158379, at *15. 89. Id. 90. Id. at *14. 91. 2010 WL 628013 (CONN. Super. Jan. 22, 2010). 92. General Statutes § 51-8......