Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the representation, and (iii) the share of the fee that each lawyer or law firm will receive or, if the division is based on the proportion of services performed, the basis on which the division will be made[.] Tex. Disc. Rules of Prof. Conduct R. 1.04©. Failure to follow the rules may result in a quantum meruit fee recovery. Tex. Disc. Rules of Prof. Conduct R. 1.04(g). “Although the Disciplinary Rules do not define standards of civil liability for attorneys, they are persuasive authority outside the context of disciplinary proceedings, and we have applied Rule 1.04 as a rule of decision in disputes concerning attorney’s fees.” Hoover Slovacek LLP v. Walton, 206 S.W.3d 557, 561 n. 6 (Tex. 2006) (citations omitted); Sanes v. Clark, 25 S.W.3d 800, 805 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); but see Tex. Disc. Rules of Prof. Conduct 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that contracts of adhesion are not voidable unless unconscionable (B) holding that contingency fee contract did not cap award of attorneys fees where johnson had so held (C) holding that an attorney was entitled to a quantum meruit recovery even though his oral contingency fee agreement with the client violated the ind rules of professional conduct which require a contingency fee agreement to be in writing (D) holding that contingency fee contracts are voidable where attorneys fail to comply with disciplinary rules (E) holding contingency fee cases commenced prior to dissolution are assets of the firm
Output (English): holding that an attorney was entitled to a quantum meruit recovery even though his oral contingency fee agreement with the client violated the ind rules of professional conduct which require a contingency fee agreement to be in writing