FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L18, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 19 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 6- cv -0 17 70 -CAP

R.D. LEGALFUNDING PARTNERS, LP, In te rv ern or/ Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us MARK E. ROBINSON, Int erv en or/ Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 18 , 20 12 ) Befo re WILSON andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es an d VOORHEES, Dis tri ctJu dg e. *

Honora ble Richard L . Voorhe es, United States District Judge f or the Western D istrict of * North Carolina, sitting by designation.VOORHEES, Dist ric t J ud ge :

Thi s ap pe al in vo lv es co m pe ti ng cla im s t o l eg al fees earn edinco nn ect io n with afed eral cla ss act io n s et tl em en t i n ape rs on al in jury m as s t ox ic to rt c as e (“ th e McLen do n li ti ga ti on ”). 1 The law fi rm

of De vl in & Ro bi ns on , P.C. (“ D & R”), was on e o f th ree f irms de si gn at edas c ou ns el forth e p ut at iv e p la in ti ff cl as s. D & R re cei ve d c ou rt ap pr ov al foranall oc at edto ta l awa rdof a tt orne y s’ fees inth e su m of $ 46 5,6 79 .75
. Thre e-fo urth s o f th is award , or $ 35 4,5 68 .64 , has be endi sb ur se d t o D & R ’s
as si gn ee, Ap pe ll an t R.D. Leg al Fund in g P artne rs , L.P. (“ R.D. Lega l” ) The r ig htto th e rem ai ni ng on e-fo urth is th e subjec t o f th is act io n. R.D. Lega l, an en ti ty tha t p ur ch as es unpa idleg al fees inset tl edcas es at a di sc ou nt , andApp el le e MarkE. Rob in so n (“ Ro bi ns on ”), a fo un di ng pa rtn er o f D & R n o l on ge r wit h t ha t fi rm , each cla im en ti tl em en t t o the rem ai ni ng fun ds in th e
am ou ntof $ 11 1,1 11 .11 . The d is tri ctco urt ru le d i n fa vo r of Ro bi ns on , fin di ng th at Ro bi ns on ’s in te res t p rece de d a ndwas p aram ou ntto an y in te res t R.D. Leg al m ig ht ha ve othe rwis e h adby w ay of t he ass ig nm en t fr om

D & R. R.D. Lega l co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erred“ as a m atte r of law” inth at

Latri ce M

cLendon, et al. v. Philip Services Corporation ( d/b/a Georgia Recov ery 1 Systems) , et al. / 1:06CV1770-CAP). 2Ro bi ns on ha s n o e nf or ceab le fee ag reem en t fo r rep res en ta ti on of t he pl ai nt iff cl as s, an d n o e nf

or ceab le fee- sp li tt in g a gr eem en t wi th D & R orot he r cl as s co un se l. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth he rei n, we af firm . I. InMarc h 2 00 1, Ro bi ns on , to ge th er wi th Marv in A. Devl in , Esq . (“ Dev li n” ), fo rm edD & R. In e arl y

to m id -2 00 5, Ro bi ns on ne go ti at eda bu y -o utof h is 2
own ers hi p i nt eres t i n D & R , effec ti ve Ju ne 1, 2 00 5. (Ro bi ns on Aff. 4) Rob in so n 3 ag reedto rem ai n i nv ol ve d o n c ert ai n c as es “ so th atth e cl ie nt ’s[si c] bes t i nt eres ts were p ro te ct edan d s o D & R di d n otlo se th e b us in es s o r th e cas es .” (Ro bi ns on Aff. 29 n. 2 ) Afte r hi s s ep arat io n fr om D & R, Ro bi ns onan d h is fam il y m ov edto St. Si m on s Is la nd , Geor gi a. (Ro bi ns on Aff. 5) On Ap ril 26 , 20 06 , Rob in so n a nd
an ot he r la wy er wi th no rel at io ns hi p t o D & R form edRob in so n & Ass oc ia te s, LLC (“ R & A”) andha ve pra ct ic edto ge th er as R & A si nc e th atti m e. (Ro bi ns on Aff. 6) On o r ab ou t Jul y

14 , 20 06 , Rob in so n was co nt act edby Scot t M . Zahl er, Robinson and Devlin had wor ked tog ether

previously

at the law f

irm of L ong , 2 Weinberg , Ansley

& Whee ler, L L P, located in Atlanta. ( Document #169- 1 / Robinson Aff. / Ex h. 1) Of the initial 5000 D & R shares, De vlin held 2550 and Robinson held the rema ining

3 2450. (Robinson Aff. 3) 3Esq . (“ Zah le r”) a t h is R & A of fic e. (Ro bi ns on Aff. 7) Zahl er, l eadco un se l fo r pl ai nt iff s i n t he McLen do n li ti ga ti on , so ug htto ass oc ia te Ro bi ns on on th e McLen do n m at te r. (Ro bi ns on Aff. 7; Zahl er Aff. 2 ,4) Zah le r an d R ob in so n h ada

“ lo ng -te rm

pro fes si on al ass oc ia ti on / re ferr al rel at io ns hi p wi theachot he r” tha t pr ed at edRo bi ns on ’s workat D & R . (Ro bi ns on Aff. 8; Zahl er Aff. 3 ) Dur in g t he ir i ni ti al co nv ers at io n o n J ul y 14 , 20 06 , Zahl er ad vi se d R ob in so n th athe ha d b een co nt act edby L atric e Mc Len do n (“ McLen do n” ), a fo rm er cl ie ntof hi s, wh o was “ se ek in g re pr es en ta ti on forin juri es sh e an d o th ers ha d s us ta in edas a res ul t o f to xi c ch em ic al di sc ha rg es fro m a lo cal wast e wat er treat m en t fa ci li ty in Ju ne of 2 00 6.” (Zahl er Aff. 5 ) Zahl er ad vi se d t ha t h e h adm etpe rs on al ly w it h McLen do n a nden te redin to att orne y -cl ie ntco nt in ge ntfee ag reem en ts with McLen do n a ndsev eral ot he rs to rep res en t the m inco nn ect io n wi th th e Ju ne 20 06 to xi c d is ch arg e in ci de nt . (Zahl er Aff. 6 ; Ro bi ns on Aff. 7,1 2) Zahl er t ol d Ro bi ns on th athe in te nd edto pu rs ue th e m at te r as a cl as s ac ti on , th athe was as se m bl in g atea m

of l awy ers to ass is t, an d t ha t h e wan te d t o a ss oc ia te Ro bi ns on
on be ha lf of th e p la in ti

ff s inex ch an ge fora on e-thi rdpo rti on of a ny con ti ng en t fe e earn ed
. (Zahl er Aff. 7 ; Ro bi ns on Aff. 13 ) As p ro po se d b y Zahl er, “ Ro bi ns on 4 “[Za hler] was the only

attorney to directly

enter into any fee agree ment with 4 McL endon and the other named plaintiffs in this matter. All other attorne y s that beca me involved in the case on behalf

of the plaintiffs did so through [Zahle r] via an association relationship on behalf of the plaintiffs, e ither direc tly through [Zahle r], or, in D & R’s c ase, indire ctly through 4was to be joi nt ly resp on si bl e fo r rep res en ta ti onof M cLen do n andth e o th ers , was

to be res po ns ib le foron e-thi rdof a ll ex pe ns es in cu rredinsai d re pr es en ta ti on , and
was to rece iv e a o ne -th irdpo rti on of a ny con ti ng en t fe e to be earn edinth e
m at te r.” (Zah le r Aff. 8 ) Ro bi ns on ag reedto th e p ro po se d a ss oc ia ti on an d fe esh ari ng arra ng em en t. (Ro bi ns onAff. 14 ) The fol lo win g d ay , Rob in so n t rav el edto Atl an tato m eetwith Zah le r ov er th e week en d a ndto rev ie w in fo rm at io n a ndm at eri al s ac cum ul at edby Z ah le r. (Zah le r Aff. 9 ) Ro bi ns on was a sk edto rev ie w, ana lyze, andst rat eg iz e wit h Zah le r on th e draft in g o f th e in it ia l cl as s ac ti on co m pl ai nt . (Zahl er Aff. 9 ) On J ul y 17 , 20 06 , th e McLen do n laws ui t was fil edinFu lt onCo un ty Supe rio r Co urt, St at e o f Geo rg ia , andwas s ub se qu en tl y rem ov edto th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ctCo urt, No rth ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a, Atl an taDiv is io n. (Zah le r Aff. 10 ). Afte r fi li ng su itonJu ly 17, 2 00 6, Ro bi ns on acco m pa ni edZahl er t o Fai rb urn, Geo rg ia , to a TownHall m eet in g wh ere Zah le r sp ok e. (Zah le r Aff. 1 2) The TownHall m eet in g was sch edul edto pe rm itres id en ts of a ffec te d
co m m un it ie s t o b e in fo rm edby a com pa ny repre se nt at iv e an d v ari ou s go ve rn m en ta l ag en ci es ab ou t the June 20 06 to xi c d is ch arg e in ci de nt . (Zahl er Aff. Robinson.” (Z ahler

Aff. 22) 510 , 11 )

Fo ll owi ng th e Town Hall m eet in g, “ Ro bi ns on an d [Za hl er] were bo th ap pr oa ch edby num ero us pe rs on s t ha t h adbe enex po se d t o a ndaffe ct edby the to xi c d is ch arg es an d b ot h o f [the m ] sp ok e in di vi du al ly w it h a t l eas t 2 0- 30 di ffer en t p eo pl e.” (Zah le r Aff. 1 2- 13 ; Ro bi ns on Aff. 13 ) Inth e n ex t two wee ks , Ro bi ns on an d Zah le r “ co nt in ue d wo rk in g o n t he McLen do n m at te r” b y ga th eri ng ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n, d is cu ss in g t he ne edforad di ti on al co -co un se l, an d a ls o t he Not ic e o f Rem ov al Defen da nt s fi le d J ul y 28 , 20 06 . (Zahl er Aff. 1 4; Ro bi ns on Aff. 20 ) So on aft er, Ro bi ns on to ldZahl er tha t “ he fel t h e n eed edto pe rs on al ly enl is t ad di ti on al supp ort an d re so ur ces forhi s o ne -th irdin te res t an d ro le inth e cas e.” (Zah le r Aff. 1 5) Rob in so n s po ke abo utth e p os si bi li ty of as so ci at in g D & R to
as si stwith R ob in so n’s p orti on of t he cas e, sh ari ng hi s b el ie f th atDevl in& D & R

“ were i n apo si ti on to pro vi de ad di ti on al res ou rces , m anpo wer an d e xp eri en ce Ro bi ns on fel t was ne ces sa ry to supp ort h is on e-thi rdrol e an d i nt eres t i n t he McLen do n laws ui t.” (Zah le r Aff. 1 6, 1 7) Zah le r ag reedto Ro bi ns on ’s pro po se d a ss oc ia ti on of D & R to ass is t wi th Ro bi ns on ’s res po ns ib il it ie s i n t he cas e. (Zah le r Aff. 1 8) The a rran ge m en t ca ll ed fo r Ro bi ns on to sh are h is on e-thi rdpo rti on of a ny con ti ng en t fe e earne d wi th D &
6R o n a25 %–7 5% b as is , i.e. , Rob in so n was to rece iv e 2 5% a ndD & R was to

rece iv e 7 5% o f th e o ne -th ird . (Zahl er Aff. 1 8, 2 1) Abs en t Zah le r’s as so ci at io n o f Ro bi ns on , andRo bi ns on ’s lat er re qu es t t o a ss oc ia te D & R, “ D & R wou ldne ve r ha ve be enin vo lv edinth e cas e an d wo ul d n otha ve earn edan yth in g fr om th e McLen do n la wsu it .” (Zah le r Aff. 2 0; Ro bi ns on Aff. 35 , 36 ,41 ; Dev li n Aff . 6) Ro bi ns on sp ok e wit h M r. Dev li n e arl y inAug us t 2 00 6 abo utth e McLen do n li ti ga ti on . (Ro bi ns on Aff. 25 ; Dev li n Aff . 2) Onbe ha lf o f D & R, Dev li n “ ag reed to a fee- sh ari ng arra ng em en t wh ereb y [Ro bi ns on ] wou ldke ep twen ty-fiv e p erce nt (2 5%) of [ hi s] on e-thi rdof a ny con ti ng en t fe e to be earn edinth e McLen do n la wsu itan d D & R

was a ss ig ne d t he rem ai ni ng sev en ty-fiv e p erce nt(75 %).” (Ro bi ns onAff. 25 ; Dev li n Aff . 3) Ro bi ns onne ve r “ co ns en te d t o a n a ss ig nm en t of , ass ig ne d o r ot he rwis e so ldor t ran sf erre d t o D & R , R.D. Legal or a nyon e el se , m y in te res t i n m

y twen ty-fiv e (2 5%) of t he on e-thi rdpo rti on of t he to ta l am ou ntof at to rn ey s’ fees award edinth e Mc Len do n l aws ui t.” ( Ro bi ns on Aff. 42 ) On Se pt em

be r 20 , 20 06 , D & R, in cl ud in g Dev li n a ndJac ob S. Eby, ga ve no ti ce o f it s i nv ol ve m en t as att orne y s o n t he cas e fo r cl as s p la in ti ffs . (Docu m en t #1 7) Altho ug h R ob in so n n ev er fi le d a n i nd iv idua l No ti ce o f App eara nc e, Ro bi ns on was a ct iv el y

in vo lv edinth e le ga l wo rkonth e cas e th ro ug h t he

7su cces sf

ul co nc lu si on of t he McLen do n laws ui t. (Ro bi ns on Aff. 26 ) Ro bi ns on 5
rem ai ne d e ng ag edwith Zah le r th ro ug h “ nu m ero us co m m un ic at io ns an d
m eet in gs .” (Zah le r Aff. 1 9) Rob in so n re vi ewedm ot io ns , bri efs an d o th er wri tt en
m at eri al s, an d a ss is te d wi th st rat eg y “ on m os t al l as pe ct s o f th e cas e.” (Zah le r Aff. 19 ) The McLen do n cas e was m ed ia te d o n S ep te m be r 19 , 20 07 , with R ob in so n pl ay in g ake y

rol e inach ie vi ng th e fav or ab le ou tc om e. (Ro bi ns on Aff. 26 ) 6 On Oct ob er 1 , 20 07 , witho utdi sc lo si ng th is arra ng em en t t o R ob in so n, D & R en te redin to a Mas te r Ass ig nm en t an d S al e Agr eem en t (“ Mas te r Ass ig nm en t” ) 7 with R .D. Legal . (Ders ov it z Decl . 2, 3 / Exh . A; Ro bi ns on Aff. 27 ; Dev li n Aff
. Despite not filinga Notice of Appe ara nce, a decision that wa s tactica l in part, 5 Robinson’s role as one of sever al plaintiffs’ c ounsel was tra nspare nt to the parties and othe r counsel wor

king the case . In any

event, the a

bsence of for

mal Notice of

Appea ranc e is not a sufficie nt basis to disreg ard a n attorney-client re lationship. S ee, e .g ., Kilgor e v. Sheetz, 603 S.E.2d 24, 29–30 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) ( attorney does not have to appea

r on plea dings in orde r to have a n attorney-client re lationship and enfor cea ble fe e-sha

ringagree ment; applying f ee a war d 50–50% whe re only

one counse l was ‘of

rec ord’)
. The re cord doe s not establish precise ly when the pa

rties re ache d an agree ment in 6 principle. It indicates there may have be en multiple mediation sessions. The Maste r Assignment was c omprised of thre e sepa rateassignments occur

ringon 7 October 1, 2007, Dec ember

19, 2007, and Mar ch 17, 2008, and r epre sented a purcha se of D & R’s leg al fe es by

R.D. L eg al in the total principal amount of $444,443,43. (Der sovitz Dec l. 6) Eac h assignment was supporte d by individual schedules re flec ting the spe cific unpa id fee s being assigned by

D & R, including the McLendon fee s without adjustment for or disclosure of Robinson’s interest, and cor respondingdocuments includinga L imited Irre vocable Power of Attorney for e ach a ssignment that grante d R.D. L eg al the ability “[t] o endorse and deposit any and all settlement c hecks pa yable to Assignee [R.D. L eg al].” (Der sovitz Dec l. Ex hs. B- 1 thru B3) 84, 5 ) D & R, th ro ug h i ts sh areh ol de rs , Devl in an d Earne stRedwin e, Jr ., gra nt ed

R.D. Lega l a s ecu rit y

in te res t i n a ndpl ed ge of a ll of D & R ’s “pr es en t an d fu tu re as se ts an d p ro pe rti es , in cl ud in g wi th ou t l im it at io n, al l ac co un ts , cha tt el pape r, equi pm en t, i ns tru m en ts , in ve st m en t p ro pe rty, doc um en ts , let te rs of c red itrig ht s, pe rs on al pro pe rty andge ne ral in ta ng ib le s” (co ll ect iv el y , th e “ Co ll at eral ”). (Ders ov it z Decl . 4,1 4 /Exh . A, 5 at7.) Un de r th e te rm s o f th e Ma st er Ass ig nm en t, o nc e p aym en t o f atto rn ey s’ fees be cam e due , paym en t was to be
m ad e d ire ct ly to R.D. Leg al rathe r th anD & R. (Ders ov it z Decl . 2) As a p artof t he Mas te r Ass ig nm en t, D & R s ol d a ndass ig ne d D & R ’s in te res t i n t he McLen do n att orne y s’ fees . (Ders ov it z Decl . 5) Be cau se Ro bi ns on ne ve r as si gn edhi s i nt eres t t o D & R , D & R co ul d o nl y co nv ey to R.D. Legal it s 75 % of t he on e-thi rdof the McLen do n fees . This is co ns is te ntwith Dev li n’s
swo rnaffi da vi t wh ic h a ve rs th atD & R on ly sou gh t t o s el l D &R’s p or ti on of it s co nt in ge ntin te res t i n t he att orne y s’ fees to be earn edin McLen do n . (Devl in Aff. 4,5 ) D & R al so ass ig ne d any “ am ou nt s o win g fo r di sb ur se m en ts ” co nn ect edto th e McLen do n li ti ga ti on . (Ders ov it z Decl . 7) D & R d idno t m ak e Ro bi ns on aware 8 of th e as si gn m en t t o R .D. Legal . (Dev li n Aff . 5) Si m il arl y , D & R fai le d t o m ak e
In addition to attorney s’ fe es ea rned, D & R wa s due to rec eive r eimbursement of 8 $21,235.12 from the McLendon settlement proce eds for costs incurre d duringthe litigation. 9R.D. Lega l awa re o f Ro bi ns on ’s 25 % in te res t i n t he on e-thi rdof t he McLen do n

at to rn ey s’ fees
. On J ul y 23 , 20 08 , two y ears aft er co m m en cem en t o f th e McLen do n cl as s act io n (s ub se qu en t t o m ed ia ti on , bu t p rio r to Fin al App ro va l o f th e Cl as s Act io n Set tl em en t), D & R

fil edforba nkrupt cy

pro te ct io n u nd er Ch ap te r 11 of t he Uni te d St at es Ban krup tc y

Co de inth e U.S. Ban krup tc y Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Geo rg ia
. (Inre Dev li n & Ro bi ns on , P.C., No. 0 8- 73 87 1.) D & R di d n otid en ti fy 9 R.D. Lega l as a po te nt ia l cr ed it orinba nkrupt cy , no r di d i t d is cl os e th e D & R Mas te r Ass ig nm en t. (R ob in so n Aff . 28 ) Lik ewis e, D & R d idno t l is t i ts co nt in ge nt in te res t i n t he McLen do n laws ui t as pro pe rty of the ba nkrupt cy est at e. (Ro bi ns on Aff. 28 ) A Mo ti on forPrel im in ary App ro va l o f th e Cl as s Act io n S ettl em en t was fil ed be fo re the di st ric t co urt o n Au gu st13 , 20 08 . (Ro bi ns onAff. 31 ) An Ord er gr an ti ng Prel im in ary App ro va l was is su edSep te m be r 15 , 20 08 . (Ro bi ns on Aff. 31 ) On Fe brua ry

3, 2 00 9, Ro bi ns on fil eda Pro of of C la im inth e D & R Ban kr up tc y pro ceed in g t o p ro te cthi s i nt eres t i n m at te rs un rel at edto th e

The proc eeding s were conver ted from Chapte r 11 to Chapter 7 on Ma rch 18, 2010. 9 10McLen do n li ti ga ti on . (Ro bi ns on Aff. 29 ) R.D. Lega l h ad“no off ic ia l n ot ic e o f 1 0 th e co m m en cem en t o f D & R’s Ch ap te r 11 ba nkrupt cy cas e” an d d idno t fi le a pr oo f of cla im inth e Ch ap te r 11 pro ceed in gs . (Ders ov it z Decl . 19 , 20 ) A Mo ti on forFin al App ro va l o f th e Cl as s Act io n S et tl em en t was fil edMay 20 , 20 09 , inad di ti on to a Mo ti on forAtt orne y s’ Fees an d Ex pe ns es of C la ss Co un se l. (Ro bi ns on Aff. 32 ) On J un e 2 , 20 09 , th e McLen do n Fin al App ro va l o f th e Cl as s Act io n S et tl em en t was en te redby the Co urt. InJu ly 200 9, Ro bi ns on be cam e aware of t he D & R Mas te r Ass ig nm en t t o R.D. Lega l. (R ob in so n Aff . 30 ) He lat er l earn edth atR.D. Legal ass ert ed
own ers hi p i n t he en ti re o ne -th irdof t he McLen do n att orne y s’ fees award edto D & R. (Ro bi ns on Aff. 37 ) Co ns eque nt ly, on Ju ly 19, 2 00 9, Ro bi ns on fil eda Not ic e of Att orne y s’ Fee Li en , Mo ti on to Int erv en e, an d R es po ns e in Opp os it io n t o R .D. Leg al ’s Mo ti on for

Dis bu rs em en t o f Fu nd s. (Ro bi ns onAff. 37 )

Robinson’s Proof of Claim asserted a n unsecur ed intere st in the following: 1) the 1 0 rema ining, unpa id portion of D & R’s repur chase of his D & R shares; 2) therema ining, unpa id portion of hourly

attorney s’ fe es due a s a re sult of hourly work pe rfor

med on hourly

case files billed throug h D & R “for a dministrative c onvenienc e and c lient retention / ca se transition purposes only”; and 3) the re maining, unpa id portion of a lar g e loan made to D & R in orde r for D & R to pay

off a balanc e on D & R’s corpor ate Ame rica n Express c redit ca

rd for which the cre dit card c ompany

was holdingRobinson personally responsible be causehe initially opened the ac count in 2001 for D &R. (Robinson Aff. 29 / Ex h. 2) Ac cordingto Robinson, he did not include any

claim re g ardinghis 25% of the one -third intere st in the McLendon lawsuit beca use “that intere st belong ed to [Robi nson], was [ Robinson’s] proper ty , was not par

t of the bankr

uptcy estate, a nd thus was not subject to the B ankruptc y Court’s jurisdiction.” (Robinson Aff. 29 n.1)
11On Au gu st7, 2 00 9, the di st ric t co urt p erm it te d b ot h R .D. Legal an d

Ro bi ns on to in te rv en e in th e cl as s ac ti on . On th e sa m e d at e, th e d is tri ctco urt refe rredto th e b an krup tc y co urt the qu es ti on whet he r atto rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts al lo cat edto D & R co ns ti tu te d p ro pe rty of the ba nkrupt cy est at e. On Au gu st10 , 20 09 , an a dv ers ary pr oc eed in g s eek in g d ecl arat ory jud gm en t
as to own ers hi p i nt eres t i n t he att orne y s’ fees was i ni ti at edby R.D. Leg al ag ai ns t D & R an d R ob in so n, i nd iv idua ll y . (AP No. 0 9- 06 44 5) R.D. Legal co nt en de d th atD & R as si gn edit s i nt eres t i n t he ful l o ne -th irdatt orne y s’ fees award ($ 46 5,6 79 .75 ) to R.D. Legal on Octo be r 1, 2 00 7. Pu rs ua ntto a Co ns en t Ord er is su edOcto be r 5, 2 00 9, R.D. Leg al ob ta in ed$3 54 ,56 8.6 4 a s R ob in so n’s cl ai m was on ly for $ 11 1,1 11 .11 , or 2 5% o f th e D & R fee . Cro ss -m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t wer e fi le d i n t he ba nkrupt cy co urt as to en ti tl em en t t o t he rem ai ni ng $1 11 ,11 1.1 1. Th e b an krup tc y tru st ee co nc lu de d t ha t thi s m on ey was n otpa rt o f th e b an krup tc y

est at e. On Au gu st13 , 20 10 , th e d is tri ctco urt wi th dr ew th e b an kr up tc y co urt refe ren ce t o d et erm in e th e res pe ct iv e in te res ts of R .D. Legal an d R ob in so n i n t he
rem ai nd er o f th e at to rn ey s’ fees . The d is tri ctjud ge he ardora l ar gu m en t o n Feb ru ary 25 , 20 11 . On May 11 , 20 11 , th e d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d awrit te n d eci si on award in g t he rem ai nd er o f th e fu nd s t o R ob in so n. Th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d:
12“ Ro bi ns on was h ire d t o re pr es en t the pl ai nt iff s an d d idpro vi de le ga l s erv ic es to th em . Rob in so n’s i nt eres t i n h is po rti on of t he to ta l at to rn ey s’ fees award edex is te d p rio r to an y cla im ass ert ed by R.D. L eg al Fund in g a ndco ul d n otha ve be enass ig ne d b y Dev li n & Ro bi ns on , as i t b el on ge d t o R ob in so n p ers on al ly.” (Ap pe ll an t’s Re co rdExce rp ts , 17 7 a t 4 .) The $ 11 1,1 11 .11 , pl us in te res t, was or de redto be di sb ur se d b y th e Cl erkto Ro bi ns on .

II. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r, “ a h ig hl y de fere nt ia l s tand ardof r ev ie w,” an d c on cl us io ns of l aw de no vo . Ren te ria -Ma rin v. Ag -Ma rt P ro du ce, In c., 53 7 F .3d13 21 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (b en chtri al ) (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) ; Br an do n v . Newm an , 53 2 S .E.2d74 3, 7 46 (Ga. Ct
. App . 20 00 ) (wh ethe r ret ai ne r ag reem en t i s co nt rary to p ub li c p ol ic y is a qu es ti on of law; erro rs of l aw are “ free ly revi ewab le ”); see als o D. Ro be rt Au tre y , Jr., P.C. v. Ba ke r, 53 6 S .E.2d20 4, 2 04 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 00 ) (co ns id eri ng ap pl ic ab il it y of Geo rg ia ’s att orne y -li enst atut e; “ tri al co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f fac ts when act in g a s fact fin de r m

us t b e aff irmed if th ere i s an y

ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he m .”) (i nt ern al ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. III. R.D. Lega l as se rts (1) th atRo bi ns on ha s n o e nf or ceab le co nt ractua l i nt eres t in th e $ 11 1,1 11 .11 be cau se th e u nd erl y in g c on ti ng en cy fee an d fe e sh ari ng 13ag reem en ts ass ert edby Rob in so n v io la te Geor gi a p ub li c p ol ic y ; (2 ) th atno

st atut ory att orne y li enex is ts infav orof R ob in so n p ur su an t t o O.C.G.A. § 1 5- 19
- 14 ; (3 ) th atan y

in te res t Ro bi ns on m ay

ha ve ha d i n t he McLen do n att orne y fee was
ex ti ng ui sh edby the di st ric t co urt’s Fi na l Ap pr ov al of t he Cla ss Acti on Set tl em en t
an d autho riz at io n o f pa ym en t t o c la ss co un se l p er the term s o f th e se tt le m en t; (4) th atRo bi ns on ’s on ly pos si bl e av enue forrel ie f is ag ai ns t D & R b as edup ona qu an tu m meru it th eo ry ; an d (5 ) th atRo bi ns on ’s in st an t cl ai m is ba rredby the do ctrin e o f jud ic ia l es to pp el . In l ig htof o urho ld in g tha t Ro bi ns on ha d an en fo rceabl e co nt ractua l i nt eres t i n t he $1 11 ,11 1.1 1, as well as t he pro te ct io n o f Geo rg iaCo de Sect io n 1 5- 19 -1 4, we d o n otreac h a ll of R .D. Legal ’s arg um en ts . 1 1 Ro bi ns on ha s a v al idan d e nf or ceab le co nt ractua l ri gh t i n t he rem ai ni ng at to rn ey s’ fee awar d. “ It i s t he pa ram ou ntpubl ic po li cy of t h[ e] [S] ta te [of Geo rg ia ] th atco urts wil l n otli gh tl y in te rfer e wit h t he free do m of p art ie s t o co nt ract .” Co le m anv. B- H Trans fer C o., 6 69 S.E.2d14 1, 1 44 (Ga. 20 08 ). Und er Geo rg ialaw, [P]arti es are fr ee t o c on tra ctab ou t an y subjec t m at te r, on an y

term s, un le ss pro hi bi te d b y

st atut e o r publ ic po li cy , andin jury to p ub li c To the extent R.D. L eg al claims that the a ffidavits submitted with respec t to these 1 1 issues by Robinson, Devlin, and Z ahler are not proper e vidence beca use they wer e not provided to the district court conte mporane ously with class counse l’s Motion for Attorney s’ Fe es and Ex penses f

or Class Counsel, we simply note that the conte st over the $111,111.11 be tween R.D. L eg al and Robinson was not bef ore the district court at that time.

14in te res t cl earl y ap pe ars . This an ci en t ru le is ap pl ic ab le to all th e pr iv at e rel at io ns inwhi ch pe rs on s m ay pl ace t he m se lv es to ward s ea ch ot he r. Anda co nt ractcan no t b e sa idto be co nt rary to p ub li c p ol ic y un le ss th e Gen eral Ass em

bl y ha s d ecl areditto be so , or u nl es s t he co ns id erat io n o f th e co nt ractis co ntrary to g oo d m or al s an d c on tra ry to law, o r un le ss th e co nt ractis en te redin to forth e p ur po se of effe ct in g an i ll eg al or i m

m or al ag reem en t o r do in g s om ethi ng whi ch is invi ol at io n o f la w. Bran do n, 5 32 S.E.2dat 7 46 (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d)
. “ [C]ourts m us t ex erci se 1 2
ex tre m e cau ti on inde cl ari ng a co nt ractvo idas a ga in stpubl ic po li cy an d s ho ul d d o so on ly in ca se s fr ee fr om do ub t.” Em ory

Uni v. v . Porub ians ky, 282 S.E.2d90 3, 90 4– 05 (19 81 ) (i nt ern al cit at io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. As fo r co nt ract s en te redin to by m em be rs of the Geor gi a St at e Bar , publ ic po li cy m ay be gl ean edfro m

th e Geo rg iaDis ci pl in ary St an da rd s an d t he Geor gi a Ru le s o f Pro fes si on al Co nduc t (“ th e Ru le s” )
. See ge ne ral ly, Eich ho lz Law Firm , P.C. v . Tate Law Gro up , LLC, 71 4 S .E.2d41 3, 4 15 –1 6 n . 10 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 11 ) Pursuant to Georg ia law: “[c]ontracts dee med contra ry to public policy

include but ar e 1 2 not limi ted to: (1) Contrac ts tending to c orrupt leg islation or the judiciary ; (2) Contrac ts in ge nera l restra int of trade, a s distinguished fr om contrac ts which restric t cer

tain competitive ac tiviti es . . . ; (3) Contrac ts to evade or

oppose the re venue la

ws of anothe r country ; (4) Wag eringcontra cts; or (5) Contrac ts of maintenanc e or c hamper ty . O.C.G.A. § 13-8- 2(a) (2011). Cer tain indemnification agree ments are also dec lare d by statute to violate public policy . O.C.G.A. § 13-8- 2(b). 15(ci ti ng Nels on & Hil l, P.A. v . W oo d, 5 37 S.E.2d67 0 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 2 00 0) forth e

pr op os it io n t ha t St at e Bardi sc ip li na ry st an da rd s can b e rel ie d upo n b y co urts ). Howev er, “ [t]he factth atth is cas e in vo lv es anatt orne y -cl ie ntrel at io ns hi p d oe s n ot
m ean th atth e ru le s o f pr of es si on al co nduc t p reem

ptst atut ory

law an d c as e la w reg ard in g c on tra ct s.” Will ia m J. Co on ey , P.C. v. Ro wlan d, 5 24 S.E.2d73 0, 7 33 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 99 ) (n ot withs ta nd in g a tt orne y be in g b ou ndto ab id e b y st an da rd s of pro fes si on al co nduc t, “ cas es in vo lv in g a tt orne y -cl ie ntrel at io ns hi ps are [] oft en de ci de d b as edso le ly upo n t he term s o f th e co nt ract , app li cab le st atut es an d ap pe ll at e co urt d eci si on s, wi th ou t re fere nc e to th e ru le s o r st an da rd s o f th e St at e Bar o f Geo rg ia .”) (i nt ern al cit at io ns om it te d) ; Cl ev el an d C am pe rs , Inc . v. R. Th ad McC orm ack , P.C., 63 5 S .E.2d27 4, 2 76 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 06 ) (at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p i s g en eral ly a m at te r of ex pr es s co nt ract ). The e xi st en ce o f anatt orne y -cl ie ntrel at io ns hi p “ is su ffi ci en tl y est ab li sh ed whe n i t i s s ho wn t ha t the advi ce o r as si st an ce o f th e at to rn ey is so ug htan d
rece iv edinm at te rs pe rti ne ntto hi s p ro fes si on .” Cle ve la ndCam pe rs , Inc ., 63 5 S.E.2dat 2 76 (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) ; s ee al so Lega cy Hom es , Inc . v. Co le , 42 1 S .E.2d12 7, 1 28 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 92 ). In t he in st an t ca se , th e d is tri ctco urt
co rrec tl y fou ndfact s es tabl is hi ng th e ex is te nc e o f anatt orne y -cl ie ntrel at io ns hi p be twee n R ob in so n a ndth e McLen do n pl ai nt iff cla ss . The u nd is pu te d e vi de nc e 16rev eal s t ha t Ro bi ns on , hav in g a lre ady so ldhi s s ha res inD & R an d b eg un a ne w firm , ent eredin to anatt orne y -cl ie ntrel at io ns hi p wi th th e McLen do n pl ai nt iff s at th e o ut se t o f th e li ti ga ti on . Rob in so n’s s erv ic es were s ecu redby w ay of ajoi nt rep res en ta ti on ag reem en t wi th cla ss pl ai nt iff s’ lea d c ou ns el Sco ttZahl er. Zah le r es tabl is he s t he ass oc ia ti onof R ob in so n a ndth e rat io na le be hi ndhi s d eci si onto br in g R ob in so n o n b oa rdimm ed ia te ly befo re the fil in g o f th e McLen do n laws ui t. Zah le r al so m ak es itab un da nt ly clearth atRo bi ns on ’s leg al advi ce an d a ss is ta nc e was so ug htan d, i n fa ct , recei ve d i m m ed ia te ly upo n t he ass oc ia ti on . See Leg acy Hom es , 42 1 S .E.2dat 1 28 . Rob in so n p lay eda ke y rol e in ach ie vi ng a fav or ab le
se tt le m en t fo r th e cl as s an d c on ti nu edto ass is t cl as s co un se l thr ou gh ou t the pe nd en cy of t he li ti ga ti on . Thes e u nd erl y in g fa ctua l fi nd in gs are n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. IV. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, the di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng infav or of Ap pe ll ee Mark E. Ro bi ns onis AFFIRM ED.

17