Attorneys' Fees and Contingency Fee Agreement
Rose v. Penn & Seaborn, LLC, [Ms. 2180184, June 7, 2019] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2019). The court affirms a judgment of the Pike Circuit Court awarding attorneys' fees and costs to lawyers whom the trial court found after the ore tenus proceedings were entitled to be paid for services rendered pursuant to a contingency fee agreement. The court determined the client's obligation to pay the attorneys became fixed when a settlement agreement was reached, but the client then ended the relationship with his attorneys and refused to perform under that settlement agreement. Citing Triplett v. Elliott, 597 So. 2d 908 (Ala. 1991), and Gaines, Gaines & Gaines, P.C. v. Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, 554 So. 2d 445 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989), the court concluded the trial court correctly calculated the fee based on the original contingency fee agreement rather than by calculating a reasonable fee award on the theory of quantum meruit. Id. Ms. *13-17.