Opinion ID: 2636626
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Extrinsic evidence supports the trial court's interpretation of the fee agreement.

Text: The relevant undisputed extrinsic evidence consists of (1) the clients' August 2005 letter asking BPK to reduce its fees, and (2) BPK's September 2005 letter responding to that request. The clients asked BPK to agree to a reduced flat fee if a policy limits settlement could be achieved in the early stages of the case, reasoning this would result in curtailment of further legal representation. Their August 2005 letter also says the reduced fee would be justified if settlement occurred because this eliminates the need for preparation and presentation of a jury trial. These statements reinforce the court's finding that the clients reasonably understood that legal representation includes preparation for trial. BPK's September 2005 response communicated that it would not agree to a reduced fee if it had to invest significant time and effort to resolve the case. BPK wrote: [I]t is likely [the firm] would approve of [the proposed modification] if the firm does not have to expend much more of an investment towards the case. At this point, the expense has been kept to a minimum as no discovery has yet begun. However, if the case continues on, and the firm has to invest more substantial time and expenses, it is unlikely that the firm can accept the 25%. Given this response, reasonable persons in the clients' position would not have understood that BPK intended to be paid a flat fee if it invested fifteen additional months of time and effort into the case. Based on this undisputed extrinsic evidence, reasonable persons in the clients' circumstances would understand that they were obligated to pay a thirty-three percent fee even though their attorney did not appear before a court or jury. [29] The language of the modified fee agreement as a whole and the undisputed extrinsic evidence support the court's interpretation.