Opinion ID: 2499841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Contingency Fee Agreement with the Barillas

Text: In 2001, a rift developed between Respondent and the HOA, and the HOA terminated her representation. In Respondent's stead the HOA hired Michael Schaefer (Schaefer), a lawyer and resident of Woodside Park. However, Respondent continued to represent the Barillas and, in June 2003, entered into a written fee agreement with them. The fee agreement between Respondent and the Barillas acknowledges the Barillas' payment of an initial $20,000 in attorney's fees, and it provides Respondent will continue her representation on a contingent basis of 20% of the gross amount collected. The agreement, as drafted by Respondent, is unusual in that it defines gross amount as the amount collected before any subtraction of expenses and disbursements and shall include all moneys, including specially awarded attorney's fees and costs awarded to the client. (Emphasis added). [3] Alternatively, the fee agreement allows Respondent to recover her costs and the reasonable value of her services at the rate of $125 per hour under the theory of quantum meruit if the representation were to terminate prior to trial or settlement. Over the course of Respondent's representation, the Barillas twice agreed to increase the contingent fee: first to 25%, and then to 33%. The Barillas later rejected Respondent's request to increase the contingent fee amount to 50%. Respondent testified that she eventually came to view the contingency fee agreement she drafted as a windfall for the Barillas and tantamount to her enslavement for their benefit.