Teichner by Teichner v. W & J Holsteins, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1985 |
| Citation | 478 N.E.2d 177,64 N.Y.2d 977,489 N.Y.S.2d 36 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 478 N.E.2d 177 Aviva TEICHNER, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian Ingrid TEICHNER, et al., Appellants, v. W & J HOLSTEINS, INC., et al., Defendants. Aaron J. Broder, Respondent. |
The order of the Appellate Division, 99 A.D.2d 1034, 473 N.Y.S.2d 297, should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for a hearing to determine whether respondent Broder is entitled to be paid for his services and, if so, the amount of compensation due him.
This is a special proceeding to approve the settlement of an infant's personal injury action and award counsel fees (see, CPLR 1208; Judiciary Law § 474; 22 NYCRR 603.8). The settlement of $1,200,000 has been approved and the remaining dispute concerns the attorneys' fees to be awarded trial counsel, respondent Aaron J. Broder. On April 28, 1981, after the settlement was agreed upon but before it was approved, a dispute developed between the client and Broder. Broder then moved before Supreme Court to discharge the attorneys of record, Hinman, Straub, Pigors & Manning, on grounds of conflict of interest, for an increase in attorneys' fees from 33 1/3% to 50% and that he be awarded all attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs and their attorneys of record then filed a cross motion opposing the payment of any fee, alleging that Broder had previously been discharged for cause because of his misconduct and his extortionate demands for an increased fee and seeking an order removing him. The record does not contain any denial of these allegations by Broder.
Supreme Court approved the settlement and placed 33 1/3% of the funds in escrow for payment of a counsel fee. At subsequent proceedings, the court denied both motions, awarding Broder 60% of the 33 1/3% fee as originally agreed upon and refusing to hear plaintiffs' evidence that Broder had been discharged for cause. The Appellate Division affirmed, without opinion.
A client has an absolute right to discharge an attorney at any time. If the discharge is with cause, the attorney has no right to compensation or to a retaining lien (Matter of Weitling, 266 N.Y. 184, 194 N.E. 401; Marschke v. Cross, 82 A.D.2d 944, 440 N.Y.S.2d 740; 7 N.Y.Jur.2d, Attorneys at Law, § 144, at 43-44). If the discharge is without cause before the completion of services, then the amount of the attorney's compensation must be determined on a quantum meruit basis (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horn v. Wooser
...(Shaw v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 N.Y.2d 172, 177[, 507 N.Y.S.2d 610, 499 N.E.2d 864]; Teichner v. W & J Holsteins, 64 N.Y.2d 977, 979[, 489 N.Y.S.2d 36, 478 N.E.2d 177]; Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v. Glantz, supra; Crowley v. Wolf, 281 N.Y. 59, 64-65; Martin v. Camp, 219 N.Y. ......
-
Farage v. Ehrenberg
...611 ; Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 457, 541 N.Y.S.2d 742, 539 N.E.2d 570 ; Teichner v. W & J Holsteins, 64 N.Y.2d 977, 979, 489 N.Y.S.2d 36, 478 N.E.2d 177 ; Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v. Glantz, 53 N.Y.2d 553, 556, 444 N.Y.S.2d 55, 428 N.E.2d 387 ; Hsu v. Carlyl......
-
Campagnola v. Mulholland, Minion & Roe
...attorney (Shaw v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 N.Y.2d 172, 177, 507 N.Y.S.2d 610, 499 N.E.2d 864; Teichner v. W & J Holsteins, 64 N.Y.2d 977, 979, 489 N.Y.S.2d 36, 478 N.E.2d 177; Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v. Glantz, supra; Crowley v. Wolf, 281 N.Y. 59, 64-65, 22 N.E.2d 234; Marti......
-
Vitalone v. City of N.Y.
...to legal fees" at all. Universal Acupuncture Pain Servs., P.C. v. Quadrino & Schwartz, P.C., 370 F.3d 259, 263 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Teichner by Teichner v. W & J Holsteins, Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 977, 979, 489 N.Y.S.2d 36, 478 N.E.2d 177 (1985) ). Case law holds, however, that an attorney may re......