Opinion ID: 1196201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Lack Of The Claimant's On- or Off-The-Record Waiver Of A Fee-Quantum Hearing

Text: ¶ 11 There is a serious procedural gap in the internal processing of joint-petition settlements [24] which may, as it had done here, [25] leave the fee quantum open-ended and hence keep it suspended as an unresolved issue far beyond the point of final accord between the employer and its employee. [26] The flaw can be removed by requiring that when eliciting testimony for the settlement's approval every claimant's lawyer (1) inform the client (a) of the total fee amount that will be deducted from the settlement as well as (b) of the manner in which that fee will be remitted to the lawyer; (2) ask the client if that amount and its payment mode are acceptable; and (3) advise [27] the client that (a) he/she may either agree to the explained fee terms and waive the right to a fee-quantum hearing or request that the fee-amount dispute be set for a post-settlement adversarial hearing and (b) absent a claimant's waiver and sans his/her request for a deferred post-settlement hearing, the trial tribunal will at once proceed to hear and decide the ancillary fee-quantum issue. [28] The current practice of not having a judge present to hear the settlement testimony need not be disturbed, although it should be made clear thatas a point of every lawyer's dutyall § 84 cases should be referred directly to the judge once it becomes apparent that the claimant will not waive the adversarial hearing on the lawyer's ancillary claim for a fee.