- 545 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

Ross, Schroeder & George, LLC, a limited

liability company, appellee, v. Lynn Artz

and Dee Artz, appellants.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed January 26, 2016. No. A-14-1065.

1. Courts: Appeal and Error. The district court and higher appellate 

courts generally review appeals from the county court for errors appearing on the record.

2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for errors 

appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms 

to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, 

capricious, nor unreasonable.

3. ____: ____. In instances when an appellate court is required to review 

cases for error appearing on the record, questions of law are reviewed de 

novo on the record.

4. ____: ____. In a bench trial of a law action, the trial court’s factual findings have the effect of a jury verdict, which an appellate court will not 

disturb on appeal unless clearly wrong. And an appellate court does not 

reweigh the evidence but considers the judgment in the light most favorable to the successful party and resolves evidentiary conflicts in favor of 

the successful party.

5. Contracts. Whether a contract exists is a question of fact; the meaning 

of a contract is a question of law.

6. Contracts: Attorney and Client. An attorney-client relationship ordinarily rests on contract, but it is not necessary that the contract be 

express or that a retainer be requested or paid. The contract may be 

implied from the conduct of the parties.

7. Contracts: Attorney and Client: Proof. An attorney-client relationship is created when (1) a person seeks advice or assistance from 

an attorney, (2) the advice or assistance sought pertains to matters 

within the attorney’s professional competence, and (3) the attorney 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/courts/epub/

01/26/2016 09:04 AM CST
- 546 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

expressly or impliedly agrees to give or actually gives the desired 

advice or assistance.

8. Contracts: Attorney and Client. No formal contract, arrangement, or 

attorney fee is necessary to create the relationship of attorney and client; 

the contract may be implied from the conduct of the parties.

9. Contracts: Malpractice: Proof. A binding mutual understanding or 

meeting of the minds sufficient to establish a contract requires no precise formality or express utterance from the parties themselves as to all 

of the details of the proposed agreement, and a contract may be implied 

from conduct and circumstances.

10. Attorney Fees. Counsel cannot recover fees when the representation is 

plainly in violation of the ethical requirements of the profession.

Appeal from the District Court for Buffalo County, John P. 

Icenogle, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for 

Buffalo County, Linda S. Caster Senff, Judge. Judgment of 

District Court affirmed.

Jeffrey P. Ensz, of Lieske, Lieske & Ensz, P.C., L.L.O., 

for appellants.

Kent A. Schroeder, of Ross, Schroeder & George, L.L.C., 

for appellee.

Moore, Chief Judge, and Irwin and Inbody, Judges.

Moore, Chief Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Ross, Schroeder & George, LLC (RSG), a limited liability company, filed an action in the county court for Buffalo 

County, seeking to collect the balance of a debt for attorney 

fees owed by Lynn Artz and Dee Artz for legal services provided to them. The county court found that an attorney-client 

relationship had been formed between the parties and entered 

judgment in favor of RSG. The Artzes appealed to the district 

court, which affirmed the decision of the county court, and 

then to this court. Finding no error, we affirm.
- 547 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

BACKGROUND

This case involves a dispute over who is responsible 

for attorney fees incurred for services provided by Kent 

Schroeder, an attorney with RSG, in a custody case filed in 

the district court. The parties in the custody case were Nicole 

Hasselbalch and Rickey Jackson, the parents of Sydney 

Hasselbalch (Sydney). The Artzes are Hasselbalch’s parents 

and Sydney’s grandparents. At some point, Jackson’s attorney 

in the custody case withdrew. The Artzes then contacted and 

met with Schroeder, who entered an appearance as counsel for Jackson in the pending custody case. Jackson was 

unsuccessful in the custody case, and this court affirmed 

the award of Sydney’s custody to Hasselbalch. See Jackson 

v. Hasselbalch, No. A-10-1068, 2011 WL 3849483 (Neb. 

App. Aug. 30, 2011) (selected for posting to court Web site). 

RSG subsequently filed the present attorney fees collection 

action, which raises the issue of whether there was any agreement between RSG and the Artzes that would allow RSG to 

recover from the Artzes the reasonable value of the services 

Schroeder provided.

On November 30, 2011, RSG filed a complaint in the county 

court. RSG alleged that Schroeder, an attorney with RSG, 

was employed by the Artzes to represent them with respect 

to the interests of their granddaughter Sydney. RSG alleged 

that in April 2010, an initial office conference was held and 

the Artzes paid $2,500, which was deposited into RSG’s trust 

account, and that the balance due from the Artzes to RSG was 

$18,442.38, for which RSG sought judgment.

In their answer, the Artzes admitted that they may have 

attended a conference at RSG’s office but asserted that they 

never hired RSG to represent them and never guaranteed any 

fees to RSG. The Artzes denied the remaining allegations 

of the complaint and set forth various affirmative defenses, 

including an assertion that RSG’s complaint should be dismissed because the purported agreement between the parties 

violated the statute of frauds.
- 548 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

Trial was held before the county court on March 7 and May 

20, 2014. The parties stipulated that the charges by Schroeder’s 

office of $18,442.38 were fair, customary, and reasonable and 

that the services charged for were in fact provided. The court 

proceeded to hear evidence on the issue of whether the Artzes 

were responsible for payment of those fees.

Copies of the transcript in the custody case and this court’s 

memorandum opinion following the appeal in the custody case, 

as well as documents from the transcript in a guardianship case 

involving Sydney, were admitted into evidence as exhibits in 

this case. We briefly outline the background and history of 

those cases to provide context for the establishment of the parties’ relationship in the present case.

Sydney was born to Hasselbalch and Jackson in 2002, at 

which time Hasselbalch and Jackson both resided in Lincoln, 

Nebraska. Hasselbalch and Jackson were not married to one 

another. Jackson had contact with Sydney of varying degrees 

from her birth until 2006 when Hasselbalch met and began 

cohabitating with Clinton Williams. Jackson had no contact with Sydney between summer 2006 and February 2009. 

Hasselbalch and Williams moved to Texas in 2008, and Sydney 

resided with the Artzes for a period of some months prior to 

returning to Hasselbalch’s care in Texas. In February 2009, 

Hasselbalch was residing with Williams in Texas and experiencing difficulties caring for Sydney. She asked Dee to help, 

and Dee took Sydney into her physical custody and cared for 

her in Kearney, Nebraska. In February 2009, Jackson reestablished and maintained consistent contact with Sydney, including caring for her on weekends in Lincoln.

On December 10, 2009, Dee filed a petition in the county 

court seeking appointment as Sydney’s guardian. The county 

court appointed Dee as temporary guardian. The temporary 

guardianship was vacated after a temporary custody order was 

entered in the custody case in March 2010. The guardianship 

case was dismissed by the court in March 2011 during the 

pendency of the appeal in the custody case.
- 549 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

On February 16, 2010, Jackson filed a complaint in the 

district court seeking custody of Sydney. At that time, Jackson 

was represented by an attorney other than Schroeder. Jackson 

requested temporary custody, and he alleged that Williams 

had abused Sydney and that Hasselbalch failed to protect her. 

On March 15, the court entered an order granting Jackson’s 

request for temporary custody. Jackson, who was still living in 

Lincoln, allowed Sydney to remain in Kearney with the Artzes 

to complete the school year.

On March 24, 2010, Jackson’s first attorney was allowed to 

withdraw as attorney of record in the custody case. Schroeder 

entered his appearance as counsel of record for Jackson on 

April 22.

Trial was held in the custody case on September 27, 

2010, and on October 4, the district court entered an order 

placing primary legal and physical custody of Sydney with 

Hasselbalch, subject to parenting time with Jackson as set 

forth in the order. Schroeder filed a notice of Jackson’s intent 

to appeal, and on October 4, 2011, this court issued our mandate affirming the decision in the custody case.

We now set forth the evidence with respect to the Artzes’ 

relationship with Schroeder. The Artzes accompanied Jackson 

when he retained his first attorney of record in the custody 

case. Jackson did not have money to pay the retainer requested 

by the first attorney, so Lynn wrote the check for this $2,500 

fee. The check has a notation stating, “Loan to . . . Jackson 

Legal Fees for Sydney.” After Jackson’s first attorney in the 

custody case withdrew, he asked the Artzes to help him find 

an attorney. Dee was also “very worried about [Sydney’s] situation.” The Artzes discussed the matter with “[their] attorney,” 

who recommended Schroeder. The Artzes met with Schroeder 

on April 10, 2010. Jackson was supposed to attend the initial 

conference but was unable to leave work.

Dee testified that the RSG receptionist gave them a client 

questionnaire form to fill out without any further instructions. 

Dee filled out sections of the form. In the area of the form for 
- 550 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

the client’s name, Dee wrote “Lynn & Dee Artz,” although she 

testified that “we weren’t the clients.” Schroeder testified that 

he relies upon this form to gather basic contact information 

and to “identify who [his] client is.” There is a place on the 

form to indicate whether someone else will be responsible for 

the account, which Dee left blank. Dee testified that she did 

not complete this portion of the form because “the questionnaire wasn’t even pertaining to us, because we weren’t the 

clients.” Schroeder testified that if the Artzes had indicated on 

the form that Jackson was going to be responsible for the bill, 

he would have had the Artzes sign a guarantee, but he did not 

ask them to do so because they left that portion of the form 

blank. Near the bottom of the form is the following printed 

statement: “DURING THE INITIAL CONFERENCE, YOU 

SHOULD DISCUSS THE LEGAL FEES EXPECTED TO BE 

INCURRED WITH THE ATTORNEY. IN MOST INSTANCES, 

[RSG] REQUIRE[S] THAT BOTH THE CLIENT AND 

THE ATTORNEY EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR LEGAL 

SERVICES.” It is undisputed that no such express contract was 

executed by the parties.

After the initial conference, the Artzes paid a retainer of 

$2,500 to RSG. The check was dated April 19, 2010. A notation on the check states, “Retain Fee . . . Schroeder[;] Lynn 

Loan . . . Jackson.” A receipt given to the Artzes states that the 

$2,500 was received from “Lynn . . . for . . . Jackson.”

Schroeder testified that he understood that the Artzes were 

his clients and that he would be representing Jackson “in a 

representative capacity” in the custody case. He testified that 

with respect to the custody case, the Artzes wanted to be 

able to provide Sydney a safe living environment with them 

and that the common goal of the Artzes and Jackson in that 

case was for Sydney to continue residing with the Artzes and 

attend school in Kearney. According to Schroeder, he told 

the Artzes that he would have to technically make an appearance of record for Jackson because he was the one who had 

standing to ask the court to determine Sydney’s custody, but 
- 551 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

that hopefully, if they prevailed, Jackson would continue to 

agree to allow Sydney to reside with the Artzes in Kearney. 

He testified that throughout the custody litigation, the Artzes 

were the ones who suggested trial strategies and he believed 

and understood he was working for the Artzes. The Artzes 

and Jackson all testified that Schroeder told the Artzes that 

they were not his clients and that Jackson was. Schroeder did 

not recall ever specifically telling Lynn, in the presence of 

Dee and Jackson, “[Lynn], I am not your attorney.” Schroeder 

also testified, “I don’t think I ever said that [Jackson] was 

my client. I said that I was his attorney of record.” He testified further that he represented that he was Jackson’s attorney 

because Jackson had to be the named plaintiff in the custody case.

After Schroeder entered an appearance in the custody case, 

the Artzes contacted him on a regular basis throughout the 

proceedings. While we have not detailed those contacts, the 

record shows that Schroeder had numerous contacts with the 

Artzes in person, by e-mail, and by telephone and had only 

limited contact with Jackson. The Artzes sought Schroeder’s 

advice and gave him information concerning the case. When 

discovery was ongoing in the custody case, it was sent to the 

Artzes and not Jackson. The Artzes suggested to Schroeder 

questions to ask and witnesses to call at trial. Schroeder testified that with respect to decisions as to how the custody case 

was to proceed, the Artzes “called the shots.”

A letter from Schroeder regarding the district court’s final 

order in the custody case was addressed to both Jackson 

and Dee. The Artzes advised Schroeder that they wanted 

to appeal following the district court’s decision in the custody case. The Artzes also provided a 5-page narrative of 

events that occurred after the custody decision, which they 

believed should be used in the appeal. Lynn hired a private detective to investigate whether Williams was still living with Hasselbalch in hopes of using the information to 

modify the custody decision. When Lynn received the report 
- 552 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

from the private detective, he provided the information to 

Schroeder’s office.

Schroeder did not have any conversations with the Artzes 

regarding how the bill would be sent for the services he was 

going to provide. He testified, however, that his understanding 

“from day one” was that his fee was going to be paid by the 

Artzes. In an e-mail to the Artzes, an employee of RSG asked 

them what arrangements they would be making to pay the bill. 

The record shows that monthly statements for Schroeder’s 

services were addressed to Jackson in care of Dee and sent to 

the Artzes’ address. The Artzes did not contact Schroeder and 

advise him to send the bills elsewhere.

Dee testified that they never promised to pay Schroeder 

for Jackson’s legal fees. According to Dee, Lynn had given a 

loan to Jackson to make the initial fee payment. As of the trial 

date, Jackson had not paid any money toward the “alleged 

loans that [the Artzes] made him.” Likewise, he had not made 

any payments directly to Schroeder or contacted Schroeder 

to make arrangements for payment. Dee testified that she 

gave the monthly statements to Jackson unopened. Jackson 

testified, however, that he only received one statement from 

Dee. Jackson testified that he believed Schroeder to be his 

attorney, that the bill is his responsibility, and that he intends 

to pay it.

On May 30, 2014, the county court entered judgment in 

favor of RSG for $18,442.38, plus costs and postjudgment 

interest in the statutory amount. The court applied the factors 

set forth by the Nebraska Supreme Court in McVaney v. Baird, 

Holm, McEachen, 237 Neb. 451, 466 N.W.2d 499 (1991), and 

found the evidence clear that the Artzes had an attorney-client 

relationship with Schroeder. The court stated:

A person can develop an attorney-client relationship with more than one party. It is clear that . . . 

Schroeder was the attorney of record for . . . Jackson 

and in that capacity had an attorney-client relationship 

with him[.] That does not preclude him from having an 
- 553 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

attorney-client relationship with the [Artzes] at the same 

time as long as no conflict exists. . . . Schroeder testified 

he believed there was no conflict. In the facts as related 

to the court, it did not appear that a conflict existed and 

none has been claimed. There are cases that hold that if 

an attorney represents a client in violation of the professional code of conduct that they may not be compensated 

for that representation. That is not the case here.

The court stated further:

The [Artzes] should not be allowed to benefit from 

the services of . . . Schroeder and avoid payment for 

those services. Having considered all of the relevant 

evidence, the court finds that the relationship between 

. . . Schroeder and the [Artzes] was one of attorney-client. 

[RSG] is entitled to receive the reasonable value of the 

services rendered. The fair and reasonable value of those 

services is outlined in [the stipulation at trial].

The Artzes appealed to the district court, which entered an 

order affirming the judgment of the county court on October 

30, 2014. The Artzes subsequently perfected their appeal to 

this court.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The Artzes assert that the district court erred in affirming 

the county court’s finding that an attorney-client relationship 

existed between the Artzes and Schroeder and in its entry of 

judgment in favor of RSG.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1-3] The district court and higher appellate courts generally 

review appeals from the county court for errors appearing on 

the record. Griffith v. Drew’s LLC, 290 Neb. 508, 860 N.W.2d 

749 (2015). When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing 

on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms 

to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Id. In instances 

when an appellate court is required to review cases for error 
- 554 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

appearing on the record, questions of law are reviewed de 

novo on the record. Id.

[4] In a bench trial of a law action, the trial court’s factual 

findings have the effect of a jury verdict, which an appellate 

court will not disturb on appeal unless clearly wrong. And an 

appellate court does not reweigh the evidence but considers the 

judgment in the light most favorable to the successful party 

and resolves evidentiary conflicts in favor of the successful 

party. Id.

[5] Whether a contract exists is a question of fact; the meaning of a contract is a question of law. See Braunger Foods v. 

Sears, 286 Neb. 29, 834 N.W.2d 779 (2013).

ANALYSIS

The Artzes assert that the district court erred in affirming 

the county court’s finding that an attorney-client relationship 

existed between the Artzes and Schroeder and its entry of judgment in favor of RSG.

[6,7] In determining that an attorney-client relationship 

existed between the Artzes and Schroeder, the county court 

applied the three-factor test for the existence of an attorneyclient relationship set forth by the Nebraska Supreme Court 

in McVaney v. Baird, Holm, McEachen, 237 Neb. 451, 466 

N.W.2d 499 (1991). In McVaney, the Supreme Court was 

required to determine whether an attorney-client relationship 

existed between the parties in connection with the plaintiff’s 

malpractice lawsuit against the law firm. The Supreme Court 

observed that an attorney-client relationship ordinarily rests 

on contract, but it is not necessary that the contract be express 

or that a retainer be requested or paid. Id. The contract may 

be implied from the conduct of the parties. Id. The Supreme 

Court then determined that an attorney-client relationship is 

created when (1) a person seeks advice or assistance from an 

attorney, (2) the advice or assistance sought pertains to matters within the attorney’s professional competence, and (3) 

the attorney expressly or impliedly agrees to give or actually 
- 555 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

gives the desired advice or assistance. Id. See, also, Swanson 

v. Ptak, 268 Neb. 265, 682 N.W.2d 225 (2004). Although 

there was no express employment agreement in McVaney, 

the Supreme Court held that an attorney-client relationship 

existed where there was evidence of a longstanding relationship between the plaintiff and the attorney and there was both 

general and specific discussion of what action the plaintiff 

wanted the attorney to perform.

In the present case, the Artzes argue that the test for 

the existence of an attorney-client relationship set forth in 

McVaney v. Baird, Holm, McEachen, supra, is exclusively 

a test for determining the existence of such a relationship 

in attorney negligence cases. We disagree. There is nothing in McVaney limiting the test to application only in the 

context of claims of attorney negligence. And, contrary to 

the Artzes’ assertion, the test has been applied in other contexts. See, State ex rel. Stivrins v. Flowers, 273 Neb. 336, 

729 N.W.2d 311 (2007) (considering whether attorney-client 

relationship existed between attorney and witness seeking to 

assert attorney-client privilege); Detter v. Schreiber, 259 Neb. 

381, 610 N.W.2d 13 (2000) (examining attorney-client relationship in context of closely held corporation to determine 

whether attorney should be disqualified from representing one 

shareholder in action against other shareholder); Richardson v. 

Griffiths, 251 Neb. 825, 560 N.W.2d 430 (1997) (in action to 

rescind purchase agreement, purchasers sought to disqualify 

law firm from representing sellers).

[8,9] The Artzes next argue that because no written agreement was created regarding Schroeder’s services, the county 

court should have examined whether an implied contract 

existed between the Artzes and Schroeder. The Artzes assert 

that because there was no “meeting of the minds” between 

Schroeder and them, no implied contract existed. Brief for 

appellants at 11. In McVaney v. Baird, Holm, McEachen, 237 

Neb. 451, 466 N.W.2d 499 (1991), the Nebraska Supreme 

Court observed that no formal contract, arrangement, or 
- 556 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

attorney fee is necessary to create the relationship of attorney 

and client; the contract may be implied from the conduct of 

the parties. The Supreme Court further observed that a binding mutual understanding or meeting of the minds sufficient 

to establish a contract requires no precise formality or express 

utterance from the parties themselves as to all of the details of 

the proposed agreement, and a contract may be implied from 

conduct and circumstances. Id.

Applying the test set forth in McVaney to the facts of the 

present case, we find no error in the county court’s determination that an attorney-client relationship existed between the 

Artzes and Schroeder. Although no written contract existed 

between the Artzes and Schroeder, an attorney-client relationship can be implied from their conduct. The Artzes sought 

advice or assistance from Schroeder, an attorney with many 

years of professional experience in the area of family law. 

They sought an office consultation, filled out a client questionnaire form identifying themselves as the clients, and paid 

the initial retainer amount of $2,500. Specifically, they asked 

Schroeder to appear as the attorney of record for Jackson in 

the custody case, a matter within Schroeder’s professional 

competence, with the goal of providing Sydney a safe living 

environment and allowing her to continue residing with the 

Artzes and attending school in Kearney. There is no question 

that Schroeder actually gave the desired assistance. He entered 

an appearance in the custody case, interacted extensively with 

the Artzes during the course of those proceedings, represented 

Jackson at the trial, and pursued an appeal at the Artzes’ 

request. We find no clear error in the county court’s finding 

that an attorney-client relationship was created in this case 

between the Artzes and Schroeder, as there was competent evidence to support this finding.

[10] The Artzes next point to the county court’s finding 

that an attorney-client relationship was also created between 

Schroeder and Jackson by virtue of Schroeder’s appearance as 

attorney of record for Jackson in the custody case. They argue 
- 557 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

that counsel cannot recover fees when the representation is 

plainly in violation of the ethical requirements of the profession. In re Estate of Watson, 5 Neb. App. 184, 557 N.W.2d 

38 (1996).

Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-501.7 permits an attorney to 

represent more than one person if no conflict of interest exists. 

In this case, the county court found that Schroeder’s attorneyclient relationship with Jackson did not preclude him from having an attorney-client relationship with the Artzes as long as 

no conflict existed. The court found no evidence of a conflict 

and observed that none had been claimed. We find no error in 

this determination.

The Artzes do not argue a violation of § 3-501.7 on appeal. 

Instead, they argue that, to the extent the Artzes “called the 

shots” in the custody case, this was a violation of Neb. Ct. 

R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-505.4(c) which prohibits a lawyer from 

permitting someone who pays the lawyer to render legal 

services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services. See brief 

for appellants at 21. However, Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 

§ 3-501.8(f) provides that a lawyer may accept compensation 

from a third party as long as there is no interference with the 

lawyer’s independent professional judgment and the client 

gives informed consent. In this case, the record shows that 

the Artzes and Jackson had the same objective with respect 

to the custody case; namely, that Jackson be awarded custody of Sydney and that Jackson allow Sydney to continue 

residing with the Artzes in Kearney. Jackson clearly sought 

the Artzes’ involvement and assistance in the custody case, 

including their sharing of relevant information with Schroeder. 

There is nothing to show that the Artzes directed or regulated 

Schroeder’s legal judgment in a way that violated § 3-505.4(c) 

or § 3-501.8(f).

Next, the Artzes argue that, assuming the Artzes employed 

Schroeder to represent Jackson and agreed to pay his fees, any 

such agreement was not in writing and would thus be void as 
- 558 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

a violation of the statute of frauds. In support of their argument, they cite Neb. Rev. Stat. § 36-202(2) (Reissue 2008), 

which provides that “every special promise to answer for the 

debt, default, or misdoings of another person” shall be void 

unless it is in writing. While the county court did not specifically address this statute of frauds defense, the court’s rejection of this defense is implicit in its judgment. We conclude 

that the statute in question is inapplicable as RSG is not seeking in this case to have the Artzes answer for Jackson’s debt, 

but, rather, for their own debt.

Finally, the Artzes argue that the county court improperly 

applied a benefit analysis to its ultimate finding. Specifically, 

they cite the court’s finding that the Artzes should not be 

allowed to benefit from Schroeder’s services and avoid payment for those services. This argument is without merit.

“Unless the circumstances show that the services were 

intended to be gratuitous, where services are rendered by 

an attorney at the request of another, or where the benefits of such services are knowingly accepted, a promise 

to pay therefor will be presumed, particularly where it 

would be inequitable for the party benefited to share 

the benefit without contributing to the expense. Thus, 

where there is even slight proof of an employment of 

the attorney by the client, the fact that the latter stood 

by without objection and allowed the attorney to render 

valuable services in his behalf will estop him to deny the 

fact of employment. The acquiescence must be such as 

presumes volition on the part of the person sought to be 

charged, however, and there is no acquiescence where he 

has no choice but to avail himself of the efforts made by 

the attorney.”

In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Tucker, 9 Neb. App. 

17, 22-23, 606 N.W.2d 868, 872 (2000), quoting 7A C.J.S. 

Attorney & Client § 288 (1980).

In this case, the circumstances do not show that the services 

rendered by Schroeder were intended to be gratuitous. As set 
- 559 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

23 Nebraska Appellate Reports

ROSS, SCHROEDER v. ARTZ

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 545

forth above, the record shows Schroeder’s employment by the 

Artzes. Schroeder rendered valuable services on their behalf, 

and they knowingly accepted those services. The county court 

did not err in finding they were responsible for payment of 

those services.

CONCLUSION

The district court did not err in affirming the judgment of 

the county court. The county court’s decision conforms to the 

law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

Affirmed.