the amount is limited by the retainer agreement. Respondents argue that

they were discharged and may assert a charging lien, and that discharged attorneys with contingency fee agreements may recover the reasonable value of their services in quantum meruit. We review the construction of NRS 18.015 de novo. Leventhal v. Black & LoBello, 129 Nev. , 305 P.3d 907, 910 (2013).

Regarding an attorney's withdrawal or discharge, NRS 18.015 is silent, requiring only that there must be a "claim, demand or cause of action, . . . which has been placed in the attorney's hands by a client for suit or collection," or upon which a suit or other action has been instituted, before the attorney may assert a charging lien. NRS 18.015(1) (2012). 1 We have previously determined that a charging lien asserted by a withdrawing or discharged attorney is enforceable. See Earl v. Las Vegas Auto Parts, Inc., 73 Nev. 58, 62, 307 P.2d 781, 783 (1957). Accordingly, in this case, respondents' right to assert a charging lien is not foreclosed by the fact that they either withdrew or were discharged by appellants.

Although respondents' withdrawal or discharge does not prevent them from asserting a charging lien, the amount of the charging lien is limited to "the amount of any fee which has been agreed upon by the attorney and client," or, in the absence of an agreement, to "a reasonable fee for the services." NRS 18.015(1). Thus, the fee agreement controls the lien amount, subject to the district court's determination of the reasonableness of the charges under Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969). NRS 18.015(1); Argentena
'The 2013 Legislature amended NRS 18.015. 2013 Nev. Stat., ch. 79, § 1; S.B. 140, 77th Leg. (Nev. 2013). This appeal is governed by the pre-amendment version of NRS 18.015. See NRS 18.015 (2012).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 3

1111 111171 

### Consol. Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, 125 Nev. 527, 540 n.2, 216 P.3d 779, 788 n.2 (2009).

In this case, the retainer agreement provided for a $15,000 retainer fee and a contingency fee of one-third of any amount recovered in excess of $2.565 million if the case proceeded past the NRCP 16.1 conference. The retainer agreement did not specify what would occur if respondents were discharged or withdrew before the case concluded. Appellants had recovered only $50,000 when the charging lien was adjudicated, and did not recover any other amounts during the remainder of the litigation. In cases involving contingency fee agreements, attorneys are permitted to assert a charging lien upon the occurrence of the contingency and recover a reasonable amount in quantum meruit for services rendered before their withdrawal or discharge. Here, however, because the contingency did not occur, we conclude that respondents are not entitled to recover the reasonable value of their services in quantum meruit. NRS 18.015(1); 

### see generally Fracasse v. Brent, 494 P.2d 9 (Cal. 1972). Thus, the district court improperly adjudicated respondents' charging lien. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED. 2 

# P
e.-4.0k Parraguirre

2 We have considered the parties' other arguments and conclude that they are either without merit or moot in light of this order.cc: Second Judicial District Court Dept. 10 Margaret M. Crowley, Settlement Judge Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd./Reno Carl M. Hebert Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 4, 4