NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL

- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0455n.06
No. 14

- 6367
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD ADLER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JOE F. CHILDERS , JR.,
Defendant

- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Before: GIBBONS and COOK , Circuit Judges; MURPHY, District Judge. 1 MURPHY, District Judge. Dr. Richard Adler hired attorney Joe Childers on a contingency fee basis to help him sue a property developer and a construction company. After two years of litigation, Dr. Adler gave Childers permission to settle the case for $362,25 0. The attorneys for both parties agreed on a tentative settlement and the court sua sponte stayed the

case pending completion of the settlement agreeme nt. After Dr. Adler learned that the district court had dismissed the case from its active docket, he accused Childers of dismissing the case without prior approval and misrepresenting facts to t he court, he expressed concern about
Chil ders’ desire not to go to trial, and he stated that the agree ment was full of provisions he could not accept. Childers responded that he would reinstate the case, but that his motion for
reinstatement would be accom panied by a motion to withdraw. Dr. Adler then emailed th e district court, claim ed that he wa s without counsel and requested the court to restore the matter to

1 The Honorable Stephen J. Murphy, III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.the court’s active docket. Childers filed a subsequent motion to withdraw, as well as a motion f or attorney’s fees and a lien, seeking quantum meruit compensation in lieu of a contractual contingency fee. The district court held a hearing and issued a written opinion, in which the court
determined t hat Childers could recover a quantum meruit fee aw ard under Kentucky law. It explained that the Kentucky Supreme Court had not specifically addressed whether an award
based on quantum meruit was available when both parties contributed to the breakdown of the attorney

- client relationship. Nonetheless, it f ound the case comparable to Kamber v. Abrams , No.
2011

- ca
- 000988

- MR, 2012 WL 5305735 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2012) (unpublished). In both

cases, the client repeatedly questioned the attorney’s ability to represent him and was culpable in undermining the emp loyment arrangement. The district court then determined the appropriate fee. Based on Chi lders’ thirty

- year experience as an attorney, his previous hourly rate, his specialized knowledge, and the skill with which he had litigated the case, the Court found a reasonable rate of $300 per hour. It also
determined that Childers had bil led 292.33 hours. After taking account of the amount s that Dr. Adler had already paid, the district court awarded $77,890.19 in outstanding legal fees. On appeal, Dr. Adler contends that the district court erred in granting a quantum meruit
fee award and that the sum awarded was unreasonable. Having reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, we adopt the district court’s opinion and reasoning a s our own and
AFFIRM.