Court Opinion

ID: 9855126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:19:56.727916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:41.352504
License: Public Domain

TEIGEN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
I agree the action must be dismissed, however I do not agree it should be dismissed on merits. I believe the provision of the contract interpreted and construed by the majority has no validity under the law. I find the provision in the contract relative to “probate fees” quoted in the majority opinion is unethical as being contrary to Canon 34 (Division of Fees) of the Canons of Professional Ethics governing the conduct of lawyers; that it is against public policy and is offensive to good morals. There is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff rendered any legal services or assumed any responsibility in the probate of the two estates. The contract provision provides for “fee splitting” without the previous consent of the client and without the assumption of a division of service or responsibility. Our statute, Section 9-08-01, N.D.C.C., provides that any provision of a contract is unlawful if it is (1) contrary to an expressed provision of law, (2) contrary to the policy of expressed law, though not expressly prohibited, or (3) contrary to good morals.
It is my opinion that a provision in a contract between two lawyers providing that one lawyer shall pay to the other a one-fourth share of the legal fees collected by the former for the probate of potential estates upon the death of persons named in the contract, if the former is employed as legal counsel in such estates, and which division is not to be based on a division of service or responsibility, is unlawful as being contrary to public policy and good morals and, therefore, should not be enforceable in the courts nor should the courts lend their aid to either of the parties involved in such conduct. An illegal provision of a contract creates no obligation between the parties and cannot form the basis of a judicial proceeding. It is void both at law and in equity. Mees v. Grewer, 63 N.D. 74, 245 N.W. 813.