Opinion ID: 2586049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Public policy favors allowing Mazon to recover prospective fees

Text: ¶ 36 The majority claims public policy motivates its holding, not preexisting legal standards. The majority accepts the Court of Appeals rationale that a bright-line rule prevents conflicts from arising at any point during representation, assures the client's interest is paramount regardless of the issue, and is easy to administer. Majority at 1171-72. While the majority is correct that allowing attorneys to recover prospective fees under limited circumstances may not always be easy to administer, a judge's job is not necessarily an easy one. The remaining concerns are irrelevant if an attorney loses his client's case through negligence and incompetence. Liability arose only after the malpractice. If the client's best interests were paramount, Krafchick would have timely served the defendant. Linking liability to cocounsel and liability to the client provides a greater incentive for an attorney to pursue the case. ¶ 37 The majority also claims letting attorneys sue one another will erode public confidencewhat little remainsin the legal system. [5] This is speculation at most, not adequate reason to deny a lawyer the legal right to recover damages sustained as the result of another's negligence or breach of contractual duty. What will the image of lawyers insulating themselves from liability do? By turning a blind eye to an attorney's negligence, the majority hopes to encourage cocounsel to back each other up and ensure that there are fewer mistakes in pursuing the best outcome for the client. Majority at 1173. Apparently Mazon should have checked with Krafchick daily, acting as his cocounsel's keeper. An attorney with enough time to constantly investigate his cocounsel's activities likely does not need cocounsel in the first place. Dividing responsibilities provides common clients extra talent and resources and promotes efficiency. ¶ 38 The majority hopes to send a clear message: each cocounsel is entirely responsible for diligently representing the client. Majority at 1173 (emphasis added). The bright-line rule adopted today does the opposite; Krafchick is only partially responsible for his mistake. He breached his duties of care to both client and cocounsel. Based on the settlement amount, this cost Layouni $1.3 million and Mazon $325,000. Layouni recovered $1.3 million, while Mazon recovered nothing. ¶ 39 Mazon should be allowed to recover his prospective fees from Krafchick. Accordingly the Court of Appeals should be reversed. ¶ 40 I dissent.