Schwartz v. Broadcast Music
| Decision Date | 03 May 1955 |
| Citation | 130 F. Supp. 956 |
| Parties | Arthur SCHWARTZ et al., individually and on behalf of other writers and composers of musical compositions similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BROADCAST MUSIC, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Francis C. Leffler, New York City, for plaintiffs, for the motion.
Bannister, Stitt, Holloway & Krause, New York City, Edward W. Stitt, Jr., New York City, of counsel, for proposed substituted attorney.
Hays, St. John, Abramson & Heilbron, New York City, for present attorneys of record.
Plaintiffs in this anti-trust suit move for an order of substitution of a former partner of the present attorneys of record in the latter's place and stead. Thirty-two of the thirty-three plaintiffs have filed duly acknowledged consents to the substitution. (The thirty-third plaintiff is in Europe and it is anticipated his formal consent will soon be filed.) The issues on the motion center about the terms and conditions upon which the substitution is to be granted.
A client may discharge his attorney at any time and for any reason, however arbitrary. This absolute right of discharge may be exercised in the face of a specific retainer agreement and unlike the rule in ordinary contract relationships, cancellation does not constitute a breach of contract. The right is a necessary incident of the lawyer-client relationship which, if it is to serve the client's interests, must at all times rest upon a foundation of mutual respect and confidence. But when the client exercises this power of substitution, it must be on terms which are fair and fully protect the rights of the former attorney for the value of the services rendered prior to discharge. Further, where the attorney is discharged without cause he is entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis and the original agreement may not limit the amount of the charge although it may be taken into account in determining the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered.1
In the instant case, in addition to the usual single dispute between lawyer and client as to terms of the agreement or the value of the services, another controversy emerges from the papers presented on this motion — one between the attorneys of record (referred to hereafter as the former attorneys) and their former associate, referred to hereafter as the new attorney. This dispute amongst the erstwhile partners touches not only upon the present suit but other matters as well. As is not uncommon in such situations their differences are tinged with some acrimony. I hold that the issues arising out of the partnership affairs are not relevant on this application for a substitution; they are the subject of an independent accounting proceeding which involve the rights of the former partner. We are here concerned only with the controversy between the clients and their former attorneys.
The action is described as a class suit instituted by the plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all other writers and composers of musical compositions similarly situated. The defendants are radio and television corporations, music publishing concerns, and individuals associated with them. Damages are claimed in the sum of $150,000,000. The clients contend that the former attorneys were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parents Against Drunk Drivers v. Graystone Pines Homeowners' Ass'n
...901, 907 (Mo.Ct.App.1986); Clark v. Coats & Suits Unlimited, 135 Mich.App. 87, 352 N.W.2d 349, 355 (1984); Schwartz v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 130 F.Supp. 956, 958 (S.D.N.Y.1955). Another factor the trial court should consider under this equitable theory is that an attorney should generally ......
-
Petition of Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis & Cohen
...and an attorney discharged without cause is only entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis. Schwartz v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 130 F.Supp. 956, 957-58 (S.D.N.Y.1955). However, Mrs. Richard has failed to present any evidence that she dismissed Rosenman during the course of the underlying......
-
IN RE PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY ANTITRUST LIT.(MULTIDIST. LIT.)
...N.J. Eq. 230, 4 A.2d 88 (1939). Cf. Jaslow v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1164, 1165-1166 (E.D.N.Y.1970) and Schwartz v. Broadcast Music, 130 F.Supp. 956, 958-959 (S.D.N.Y.1955). In a related context the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Ethical Consideration 5-7 and Disciplinary Rule......
-
Nowell v. Dick, 24975.
...contract limitations. In re Montgomery's Estate, 272 N.Y. 323, 6 N.E. 2d 40, 109 A.L.R. 669 (1936); see, also Schwartz v. Broadcast Music, Inc., S.D. N.Y., 1955, 130 F.Supp. 956. But even if Texas law is said to apply, the result is the same. If an attorney is discharged, he can recover in ......