* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no pre cedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-60860

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL S. FAWER,

A Professional Law Corporation

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONALD S. EVANS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:89-CV-835-RR)

(October 11, 1995)

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donald Evans appeals th e district court's judgment awarding

recovery to Michael S. Fawer, A Professional Law Co rporation, on

the basis of quantum meruit. We affirm.

Fawer was hired by Donald's father, Wilson Evans, to defend

both Wilson and Donald in a criminal action brought by the United

States Government upon a seventeen-count indictment. Only four of2

the seventeen counts contained allegations against Donald: Three

counts were against both Donald and Wilson, one was against only

Donald, and thirteen were against only Wilson. Approximately two

weeks after the criminal trial commenced, Fawer obtained a judgment

of acquittal in favor of Donald. Subsequently, after Wilson

declared bankruptcy and had his debt to Fawer discharged, Fawer

sued Donald to recover legal fees for representing Donald. The

district court concluded that Fawer was entitled to a quantum

meruit award of $28,921.44 for legal services rendered to Donald.

We review findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of

law de novo

. First, we decide whether Fawer was entitled to any

award . In Mississippi, quantum meruit recovery "may be premised

either on express or `implied' contract, and a prerequisite to

establishing grounds for quantum meruit recovery is [a] claimant's

reasonable expectation of compensation." E state of Johnson v.

Adkins

, 513 So.2d 922, 926 (Miss. 1987). "A recovery for services

rendered on a quantum meruit basis is permitted because the law

will imply a contract to pay for services where the circumstances

are such as to warrant an inference of an understanding by the

person performing the work, that the person receiving the services,

intends to pay for it." K alavros v. Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust

Co.

, 158 So.2d 740, 744 (Miss. 1963). Although the district court

found that Fawer and Donald had not entered into a contract, it

also found that Donald's conduct demonstrated that Donald knew that

Fawer was representing him and that he or someone else would owe a

fee to Fawer. Our review of the record persuades us that these3

findings were not clearly erroneous. Donald does not deny that he

was aware that he was receiving legal services from Fawer, but

insists that his father had sole responsibility for payment of

their legal fees; Donald thus suggests that he was absolved of any

obligation to pay for Fawer's services even if his father failed to

pay. We disagree. Since Donald knew that he was being defended by

Fawer and that Fawer expected to be paid for his servic es, the

district court could have concluded that Donald knew that his

father's nonpayment, rather than resulting in free legal services

for Donald, might obligate Donald to be responsible for his share

of the legal fees. Hence, we agree with the district court that

Fawer can recover on a theory of quantum meruit.

Second, we decide whether the amount of the district court's

award was appropriate. "The measure of recovery in quantum meruit

is the reasonable value of the materials or services rendered."

Estate of Johnson , 513 So.2d at 926. As most of Fawer's billings

reflected work done on behalf of Wilson and Donald together, Fawer

was unable to itemize separate amounts attributable solely to his

representation of Donald. Accordingly, the district court adopted

an alternate method for computing Faw er's award. Accounting for

payments made, the court determined that the total amount that

Wilson and Donald Evans still owed to Fawer was $152,916. From

this total, the court subtracted $30,000, the estimated fees that

accrued after Donald's acquittal, leaving $122,916 at tributed to

Donald and Wilson together. The court then divided this $122,916

by seventeen to obtain a per-count figure of $7,230.36, which was4

multiplied by four

-- representing the number of counts containing

allegations against Donald -- to obtain an award of $28,921.44 in

favor of Fawer for legal services rendered to Donald.

We are satisfied that the district court's analysis produced

a fair award for Fawer. That there is difficulty in allocating

legal fees among multiple clients ought not bar an attorney from

receiving the reasonable value of services rendered to a nonpaying

client who benefited from the attorney's efforts. Ultimately, the

district court must make a judgment call in calculating a quantum

meruit award in the f ace of such uncertainty, and we cannot say

that the district court's judgment in this case warrants reversal.

The peril confronting a criminal defense lawyer is that his

clients frequently may not be the most reliable obligors. Cash in

advance is a solid method for dealing with this concern.

AFFIRMED.