Opinion ID: 786398
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: When Quantum Meruit Fees Are Determined

Text: 13 Q & S argues that the district court should not have awaited the completion of the underlying litigation to determine whether Q & S was discharged for cause and, if not, the amount of fees in quantum meruit. While we agree that a district court typically should determine quantum meruit fees upon request by the discharged attorney, we cannot conclude that the district court, in this case, abused its discretion by waiting until the conclusion of the underlying litigation. 14 Under New York law, a lawyer's right to recover in quantum meruit accrues immediately upon discharge. See Cohen, 81 N.Y.2d at 658, 602 N.Y.S.2d at 789, 622 N.E.2d at 289; Lai Ling Cheng, 73 N.Y.2d at 459, 541 N.Y.S.2d at 745, 539 N.E.2d at 573; Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot v. New York, 302 A.D.2d 183, 188, 754 N.Y.S.2d 220, 224 (1st Dep't 2002); Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Gelmin, 235 A.D.2d 218, 219, 651 N.Y.S.2d 525, 527 (1st Dep't 1997); Turner v. Steve Brody, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 904, 904, 264 N.Y.S.2d 867, 867-68 (2d Dep't 1965) (mem.). As a result, New York courts ordinarily calculate quantum meruit compensation at that time. See Cohen, 81 N.Y.2d at 659, 602 N.Y.S.2d at 790, 622 N.E.2d at 290 (As a practical matter, quantum meruit valuation of services rendered by a discharged attorney can best be determined at the time of discharge, rather than some months or years later when the case finally ends.); Lai Ling Cheng, 73 N.Y.2d at 458, 541 N.Y.S.2d at 745, 539 N.E.2d at 572 (noting that quantum meruit compensation [is] a fixed dollar amount determined at the time of discharge); Tillman v. Komar, 259 N.Y. 133, 136, 181 N.E. 75, 76 (1932) (Since [an attorney] is entitled at the [time of discharge] to enforce his claim by action, he need not ... be compelled to await the outcome of the litigation from which he has been displaced.). We do not think, however, that a court necessarily abuses its discretion by postponing the determination of the fair and reasonable value of an attorney's services either in order to avoid unnecessary delay in the underlying litigation, or if, under the particular circumstances of the case, a more accurate determination can be made later. See Tops Mkts., Inc. v. Quality Mkts., Inc., 2001 WL 392082, at , 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4238, at  (W.D.N.Y. Apr.4, 2001) (noting that a court has discretion to defer the determination of the fair and reasonable value of a discharged attorney's fees under quantum meruit until the conclusion of the litigation). On the facts before us, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by waiting to determine the issue of a possible quantum meruit award until the underlying litigation was completed.