Opinion ID: 2814903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Choice of Alabama Law

Text: 3 We have carefully reviewed the record and found no instance of Doyle requesting a jury trial, except as to the underlying prison death case. Doyle appears to have first mentioned a jury trial following the district court’s division of the fee in two parentheticals to case citations in his Rule 60(b) motion. Further, despite WCQP’s argument in its response brief that the issue was not raised, Doyle offers no record citations, in either of his briefs, showing that he ever requested a jury trial. 6 Case: 14-60567 Document: 00513105668 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 No. 14-60567 We agree with the district court’s choice of law determination. Doyle argues that because the Section 1983 claim occurred in Mississippi, any issue concerning attorney’s fees under Section 1988 is governed by Mississippi law. This ignores the district court’s well-reasoned conclusion that Section 1988 did not apply once the Probate Court determined that the “part of the settlement which addresses attorneys’ fees” was reasonable. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) states that “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee.” The Supreme Court has held that: § 1988 controls what the losing defendant must pay, not what the prevailing plaintiff must pay his lawyer. What a plaintiff may be bound to pay and what an attorney is free to collect under a fee agreement are not necessarily measured by the “reasonable attorney’s fee” that a defendant must pay pursuant to a court order. Section 1988 itself does not interfere with the enforceability of a contingent-fee contract. Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82, 90 (1990) (emphasis added). The plaintiffs paid fifty percent of their $700,000 award as attorney’s fees pursuant to the original contingency agreement. This generous payment, like the payment in Venegas, was based upon an agreement between plaintiffs and their attorneys, not a determination by the court about what defendants must pay plaintiffs’ counsel. Section 1988 does not control. See id. Thus, we must perform a choice of law analysis, the first step of which is to determine whether the law at issue is procedural or substantive. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tillman, 161 So. 2d 604, 613 (Miss. 1964) (holding that Mississippi will apply the substantive law of the state where the cause of action arose but its own rules of procedure). Mississippi considers the award of attorney’s fees procedural and contract questions substantive. Sentinel Indus. Contracting Corp. v. Kimmins Indus. Serv. Corp., 743 So. 2d 954, 959– 7 Case: 14-60567 Document: 00513105668 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 No. 14-60567 60 (Miss. 1999). We agree with the district court that this is a contract dispute between the parties. Attorney’s fees are awarded when “a statute or other authority so provides.” Id. at 971. This is not a case about whether attorney’s fees should be awarded. It is a contractual dispute between two attorneys over how to divide a contingency fee, and no longer involves the interests of the client or the defendants. Thus, the issue is substantive and we turn to Mississippi’s choice of law rules regarding substantive questions. Mississippi applies the “center of gravity” test when determining which state’s law to apply to a substantive question. Sheppard Pratt Physicians, P.A. v. Sakwa, 725 So. 2d 755, 757 (Miss. 1998) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 (1971)). The center of gravity test has seven factors. 4 Boardman, 470 So. 2nd at 1033. In contract disputes, Section 188 of the Restatement contains five additional factors. 5 Id. at 1032. Here, we hold that the Section 188 factors necessitate the application of Alabama law. Many factors support this decision. The contingency agreement was negotiated and signed in Alabama. WCQP is based in Alabama. Doyle is located in Alabama. The bulk of the legal work performed by WCQP and Doyle occurred in Alabama. The estate was probated in Choctaw County, Alabama. The attorneys initially argued in their filings that Alabama law applied and 4 These factors are: (1) the needs of the interstate and international systems; (2) the relevant policies of the forum; (3) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of a particular issue; (4) the protection of justified expectations; (5) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law; (6) the certainty, predictability and uniformity of result; and (7) the ease of determination in application of the law to be applied. 5 These factors are: (1) the place of contracting; (2) the place of negotiating the contract; (3) the place of performance; (4) the location of the subject matter of the contract; and (5) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties. 8 Case: 14-60567 Document: 00513105668 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 No. 14-60567 thus expected that the court would employ Alabama law. Alabama has an interest in the outcome of a case involving its attorneys. Countervailing factors—the attorney’s subsequent discussion of Mississippi law and the fact that the defendants’ malfeasance occurred in Mississippi—do not shift the balance in favor of applying Mississippi law. On the whole, applying the various Restatement factors and weighing them appropriately according to the facts, Alabama law applies.