-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 02-cv-00311-RPM

CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOLYCHEM, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDERS REGARDING MOLYCHEM’S MOTION TO ADJUDICATE ENTITLEMENT

UNDER ATTORNEY’S CHARGING LIEN AND

RAMON L. PIZARRO’S MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEY’S LIEN

Final judgment entered in this action on March 12, 2008. The judgment included a

monetary award in favor of defendant Molychem, LLC (Molychem) and against plaintiff Climax

Molybdenum Company (Climax) in the amount of $1,182,920.00 for attorneys’ fees and

$348,684.76 for expenses, for a total judgment of $1,541,604.76, with post judgment interest

accruing at the statutory rate of 1.66%. 

On April 1, 2008, Ramon L. Pizarro (Pizarro) filed a notice of attorney’s lien, claiming

he is owed $215,400.00 for legal services he provided on behalf of Molychem. 

On April 4, 2008, Climax moved for authorization to deposit the judgment funds into the

Court Registry, explaining that it had been notified of a dispute between Molychem and its

counsel about disbursement of the funds and that Climax took no position with respect to that
-2-

dispute. The court granted Climax’s motion on April 8, 2008. The ordered deposit was made on

April 9, 2008. 

On April 9, 2008, Molychem, through its counsel Donald T. Trinen (Trinen), moved for a

determination of the fees owed to Pizarro and an order directing disbursement of the judgment

funds. Molychem contends that Pizarro is entitled to $77,564.57 pursuant to the terms of the

Contingency Fee Agreement dated October 13, 2003, signed by Molychem, Trinen and Pizarro. 

That Agreement provides a formula for the division of all amounts collected from Climax. 

Molychem asserts that it is entitled to $922,420.36 for attorney’s fees and expenses it has paid as

of March 31, 2008, and that the Agreement provides for the balance to be divided as follows: 

75% to Molychem, 12.5% to Pizarro, and 12.5% to Trinen. This would result in Molchem

receiving $1,387,807.72 of the judgment funds and post-judgment interest, Pizarro receiving

$77,564.57, and Trinen receiving $77,564.56 for their shares as of March 31, 2008. Molychem’s

computations are reflected in the “Judgment Proceeds Payout Schedule”, included in Exhibit A

to Molychem’s motion to adjudicate entitlement under attorney’s charging lien. [Doc. 290].

On April 16, 2008, Pizarro moved to enforce his attorney’s lien, arguing that $215,400.00

represents the reasonable fee owed to him for his legal services. Pizarro contends that the

Contingency Fee Agreement does not control and does not address the situation presented

because the judgment against Climax includes an award for attorneys’ fees greater than the fees

that Molychem has actually expended. Pizarro suggests that Contingency Fee Agreement’s

failure to specifically address this circumstance renders the Agreement unenforceable due to lack

of substantial compliance with the Rules Governing Contingent Fees set forth in Chapter 23.3 of

the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. Pizzaro argues that Molychem would be unjustly
-3-

enriched if it were permitted to retain funds representing attorneys’ fees that it did not actually

pay. 

Pizarro’s position is wrong. Under the Contingency Fee Agreement, any and all amounts

paid by Climax in connection with this action and the related ITC proceeding constitute the

“Gross Amount Collected.” The Contingency Fee Agreement provides a clear explanation of

how the Gross Amount Collected is to be divided among Molychem, Pizarro and Trinen. 

Because the contract controls, Pizarro has no claim to a greater amount based on a quantum

meruit theory. Furthermore, there is no merit to Pizarro’s suggestion that some lack of

compliance with the Professional Rules Governing Contingent Fees (which would necessarily

include his own professional shortcoming) should allow him to recover a greater fee than he

bargained for in the written fee agreement. The situation presented is not one that calls for

equity to step in to prevent injustice. Molychem’s proposed distribution of the judgment funds

correctly applies the fee agreement. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Pizarro’s motion for enforcement of attorney’s lien is denied; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Molchem’s motion to adjudicate entitlement under

attorney’s charging lien is granted, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment funds will be disbursed by the Clerk of the

Court as follows: $77,564.57 to Ramon L. Pizarro; $77,564.56 to Donald T. Trinen and
-4-

$1,387,807.72 to Molychem, for their respective shares as of March 31, 2008. Interest accrued

since March 31, 2008, is to be disbursed 75% to Molychem, 12.5% to Pizarro and 12.5% to

Trinen. 

Dated: April 28, 2008 BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

 

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge