Tillman v. Komar
| Decision Date | 26 April 1932 |
| Parties | TILLMAN v. KOMAR. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Proceeding on the application of James A. Tillman for a substitution of attorney in the place of Borris M. Komar, his attorney of record in an action filed by such applicant against the First Russian Insurance Company. From an order of the Appellate Division (234 App. Div. 752, 254 N. Y. S. 918), affirming an order of the Special Term which granted the motion for substitution of an attorney and fixed the amount of the attorney's lien upon the proceeds of a recovery in the action, the attorney appeals.
Order of the Appellate Division and that of the SpecialTerm reversed, and matter remitted to the Special Term, with directions.
See, also, 233 App. Div. 835, 250 N. Y. S. 960.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Borris M. Komar, of New York City, for appellant.
J. Sidney Bernstein, of New York City, for respondent.
By written agreement James A. Tillman retained Borris M. Komar as his attorney to prosecute claims against several foreign insurance corporations. The attorney's compensation was to be 3 per cent. of the proceeds, but in the event that the litigation should result in no proceeds, the attorney was to receive nothing. After the client's right to recover had been established and the litigation was terminated except for computation by a referee of the amounts due, serious differences arose between the attorney and the client. On petition by the client, the courts below have ordered a substitution of attorneys on condition that the client file a bond in a specified amount to pay his former attorney 3 per cent. of such recovery as might be had and have fixed the amount of his lien at 3 per cent. of any proceeds.
The client is entitled to cancel his contract of retainer but such an agreement cannot be partially abrogated. Either it wholly stands or totally falls. After cancellation, its terms no longer serve to establish the sole standard for the attorney's compensation. Together with other elements they may, however, be taken into consideration as a guide for ascertaining quantum meruit. Matter of Krooks, 257 N. Y. 329, 178 N. E. 548. The value of one attorney's services is not measured by the result attained by another. This one did not contract for his contingent compensation on the hypothesis of success or failure by some other member of the bar. A successor may be able to obtain far heavier judgments than the efforts of the original attorney could secure, or, on the other hand, inferior equipment of a different lawyer might render futile an attempt to prove damage to the client. In making their agreement, the parties may be deemed to have estimated this lawyer's pecuniary merit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Masterwear Corp.
...is abrogated and does not limit the amount that the attorney may recover. In re Montgomery's Estate, 6 N.E.2d at 41; Tillman v. Komar, 259 N.Y. 133, 181 N.E. 75, 75 (1932). The retainer agreement may nevertheless be taken into consideration with the other elements in ascertaining quantum me......
-
Skeens v. Miller
...Union Tel. Co., 73 Md. at 20-21, 20 A. at 128; S. Speiser, supra, 4:36, at 73-74 (Supp.1991); C. Wolfram, supra, § 9.5.2, at 546; Hillman, supra, at 17; Note, supra, at Because the trial court dismissed this case for failure of the petitioner's complaint to state a claim upon which relief c......
-
Monco v. Zoltek Corp.
...claim, since the "value of one attorney's services is not measured by the result attained by another." Id. (quoting In re Tillman, 259 N.Y. 133, 135-36 181 N.E. 75, 76 (1932)). The court also observed that after discharge, "the former client will not be liable for the entire contract fee. I......
-
Estate of Callahan, In re
...after the client terminates the contingent-fee contract. (Booker v. Midpac Lumber Co. (1982), 65 Haw. 166, 649 P.2d 376; In re Tillman (1932), 259 N.Y. 133, 181 N.E. 75.) The rationale behind this so-called contract approach was best articulated in the New York case. First, the client canno......