_____________

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 proper

amount of a fee. The underlying case was an action based on promissory

estoppel. After two separate appeals to this Court, in both of which the

client prevailed, the case was remanded for trial by jury. See Ruzicka v.

Conde Nast Publications, Inc., 939 F.2d 578 (8th Cir. 1991); Ruzicka v.

Conde Nast Publications, 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 lawyer 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 was

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 entire

settlement amount, and that his lien should therefore have the effect of

requiring the transfer to him of the entire $250,000.00 received by his

client in settlement.

The attorney-client relationship was originally begun by a written

contract, providing for a contingent fee of one-third of the recovery if

the case was settled before trial. When the client discharged the lawyer,

however, the contract was terminated, and both sides now agree that the

lawyer's entitlement to a fee must be determined on a quantum meruit basis.

That is, what was the fair market value of the lawyer's services?

In reaching its determination on this issue, the District Court, in

a careful opinion by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Lebedoff, approved by United

States District Judge David Doty, adequately considered the relevant

factors, including the amount of time put in, the skill of the lawyer, the

difficulty of the case, and the reasonable value of the client's claim at

the time she fired the lawyer. Having weighed these factors, the District

Court found that an appropriate fee was $80,000.00. The lawyer claims that

the case was settled for an unreasonably low figure after he was

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 District Court properly considered

the factors relevant under state law to determining the reasonable value

of the lawyer's services. The case was a difficult one, and the services

were highly skilled. On the other hand, the value of the claim was

questionable up until the time of settlement. We believe the District

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.