Title: Heldreth v. Rahimian, etc.  (concurring)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 32779
State: west-virginia
Issuer: west-virginia Supreme Court
Date: February 22, 2006

1 FILED February 22, 2006 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA No. 32779 - Holly D. Heldreth v. Dr. Ali Rahimian and Regional Women’s Health Care, Inc. Davis, C.J., concurring: In this proceeding, the majority of the Court has found that the trial court committed error in the method it used to determine attorney fee’s in this case. I fully concur in the decision reached by the majority’s opinion. I have chosen to write separately, however, to clarify Syllabus point 6 thereof. In Syllabus point 6 of the majority’s opinion, the Court has held that “[w]hile fee structures that involve a contingent-fee arrangement are clearly enforceable despite the existence of a fee-shifting statute, attorneys are not entitled to receive both the statutory fee award and the full amount of the contingent fee.” I believe this syllabus point is in artfully constructed. “Its present wording is susceptible of misinterpretation and should be more narrowly drawn.” Taylor v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 190 W. Va. 160, 165, 437 S.E.2d 733, 738 (1993) (Workman, C.J., concurring). I believe that Syllabus point 6 intended to say, and should have said, that a contingency fee agreement is enforceable despite the existence of a fee-shifting statute. However, there must be an off-set so that an attorney only recovers, under the fee-shifting statute, that amount of the award that is above what was obtained by the attorney under the 2 contingency fee agreement. The remaining amount of the statutory fee award goes to the client. In view of the foregoing, I respectfully concur.