_____________ No. 95-3198MN

_____________ Jill Ruzicka, * * Appellee, * * On Appeal from the United v. * States District Court * for the District of * Minnesota. Elliot Rothenberg, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 13, 1996 Filed: May 21, 1996

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, MAGILL and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. This is a dispute between a lawyer and his client over the prope r amount of a fee. The underlying case was an action based on promissor y estoppel. After two separate appeals to this Court, in both of which the client prevailed, the case was remanded for tria l by jury. See Ruzicka v. Conde Nast Publications, Inc. , 939 F.2d 578 (8th Cir. 1991); Ruzicka v . Conde Nast Publicatio ns, Inc. , 999 F.2d 1319 (8th Cir. 1993). On remand, the case was settled for $250,000.00, but only after the client had fired her lawyer. The lawy er then asserted an attorney's lien under state law, Minn . Stat. § 481.13, against the settlement. After appropriate

### -2-

proceedings in the District Court, that Court found that the lawyer wa s entitled to a fee of $80,000.00. The lawyer appeals, contending that his fee should have been much larger, in fact, in excess of the entir e settlement amount, and that his lien should therefore have the effect of requiringthe transfer to him of the entire $250,000.00 received by hi s client in settlement. Th e attorney-client relationship was originally begun by a writte n contract, providing for a contingent fee of one-third of the recovery if the case was settled before trial. When the cli ent discharged the lawyer, however, the contract was terminated, and both sides now agree that th e lawyer's entitlement to a fee must be determined on a quantum meruitbasis . That is, what was the fair market value of the lawyer's services? In reachi ng its determination on this issue, the District Court, in a careful opinion by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Lebedoff, approved by Unite d St ates District Judge David Doty, adequately considered the relevan t factors, including the amount of time put in, th e skill of the lawyer, the difficulty of the cas e, and the reasonable value of the client's claim at the time she fired the lawyer. Having weighed t hese factors, the District Court found that an appropriate fee was $80,000.00. The lawyer claims tha t th e case was settled for an unreasonably low figure after he wa s discharged, but the Magistrate Judge's opinion adequately addresses this issue by discussing, among other things, the doubtful value of the claim at the time the lawyer was let go. We see no error of law here. The Di strict Court properly considered the factors relevant under state law to determining the reasonable value of the lawyer's servi ces. The case was a difficult one, and the services were highlyskilled. On the other hand, the value of the claim wa s quest ionable up until the time of settlement. We believe the Distric t Court's findings and conclusions are well within permissible limits. The judgment is

### -3-

affirmed, substantially for the reasons given by Judge Lebedoff. Affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.