Case ID: so2d_670/html/0863-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HOUSTON, Justice. KENNEDY, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Betty Joyce SIMS and Roger Dale Boutwell, as co-administrators of the Estate of Roger Dale Boutwell, Jr., deceased v. BRISKMAN & BINION, P.C. BRISKMAN & BINION, P.C. v. Betty Joyce SIMS and Roger Dale Boutwell, as co-administrators of the Estate of Roger Dale Boutwell, Jr., deceased.
    1940565, 1940633.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Nov. 3, 1995.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 1995.
    Michael D. Langan and G. Wayne Ashbee, Mobile, for Appellants/cross appellees (Sims, et al.).
    W. Lloyd Copeland of Clark, Deen & Copeland, P.C., Mobile, for Appellee/cross appellants (Briskman & Binion).
   HOUSTON, Justice.

1940565 AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. RApp.P.

MADDOX, SHORES, INGRAM, and COOK, JJ., concur.

KENNEDY and BUTTS, JJ., dissent.

1940633 DISMISSED.

The cross-appeal is dismissed based on the representation of the attorneys, and this Court’s understanding, that the award of attorney fees to Briskman & Binion, P.C., will be paid out of the 40% contingency fee that Betty Joyce Sims and Roger Dale Boutwell agreed to pay to the Texas law firm of O’Quinn, Kerensky & McAninch.

MADDOX, SHORES, INGRAM, COOK, and BUTTS, JJ., concur.

KENNEDY, J., dissents.

KENNEDY, Justice

(dissenting).

Betty Joyce Sims’s son was killed in an offshore explosion. The law firm of Brisk-man & Binion had represented Sims for less than a month when she sent it a certified letter unequivocally stating that she was revoking her agreement for representation. Up to that point, Briskman & Binion’s work on behalf of Sims consisted of having her appointed administratrix of her son’s estate.

Never speaking with Sims, but instead relying on hearsay from a friend of Sims, Briskman & Binion continued for three months to act or to attempt to act on her behalf. After Sims sent Briskman & Binion another letter, again saying that she was terminating the attorney-client relationship, Briskman & Binion filed a motion in the probate court attempting to determine Sims’s competence to serve as administratrix of her son’s estate; i.e., Briskman & Binion tried to have the person it “claims” was its client declared incompetent.

Through another law firm, Sims obtained a $500,000 settlement, of which the law firm received a 40% fee. From this 40% fee, the trial court awarded Briskman & Binion over $83,000.

Assuming that Briskman & Binion was entitled to a fee, I consider the amount awarded, given the circumstances of this case, to be excessive. Therefore, I must dissent.