Opinion ID: 2629675
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Quantum Meruit Recovery

Text: After holding that rule 2-200 precluded recovery for breach of the feesharing agreement, the Court of Appeal determined that Chambers nonetheless was entitled to recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the legal services he had provided before his discharge from the Weeks case. [11] Here, Chambers contends that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a quantum meruit award could not be predicated upon an apportionment of the contingent fee. In particular, Chambers complains of the following passage in the Court of Appeal's opinion: We agree with [plaintiff] that his quantum meruit cause of action is cognizable, but the award cannot be based upon a division of the contingency fee. An attorney engaged pursuant to a contingent fee agreement and discharged prior to occurrence of the contingency may recover in quantum meruit recovery for the reasonable value of services rendered up to the time of discharge, rather than the full amount of the agreed contingent fee. In Chambers's view, this analysis is partially correct, but only if all of the contingent fee services expected of that attorney have not been rendered at the time of the discharge. According to Chambers, a trial court remains free to award the entire fee provided for in a fee-sharing agreement as a proper quantum meruit determination where, as here, the amount specified in the agreement is based on the understanding that that attorney's services were completed. In essence, Chambers contends that, notwithstanding the absence of the required written client consent, he should be allowed to accomplish indirectly a division of fees under the guise of a quantum meruit claim. We reject the contention. None of the authorities Chambers identifies addressed quantum meruit recovery in the context of an improper fee division. ( Franklin v. Appel (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 875, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 759 [holding that where attorney fee agreement was not voidable, trial court's error in not awarding damages pursuant to the agreement was nonprejudicial where the court awarded the entire fee to which the attorney was entitled as quantum meruit recovery]; see also Heppler v. J.M. Peters Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1265, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 497; Spires v. American Bus Lines (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 211, 204 Cal.Rptr. 531.) We perceive no legal or policy justification for finding that the fee the parties negotiated without the client's consent furnishes a proper basis for a quantum meruit award in this case.