Court Opinion

ID: 3212660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-13 20:09:10.60465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:33.186652
License: Public Domain

*506
   
  ORDER
 

  PER CURIAM.
 

  AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:
 

  a. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Zarreii and denying summary judgment to Angi-no & Rovner, P.C. where the facts are undisputed that Mr. Zarreii, an adult, knowingly and voluntarily entered into a contingent fee agreement with Angino
  
   &
  
  Rovner, P.C. that required the payment of a 20% fee if Mr. Zarreii discharged the Angino & Rovner Law Firm and secured other counsel, particularly under circumstances where the Angino
  
   &
  
  Rovner Law Firm had prepared the underinsured motorist case completely to the point of selecting arbitrators and awaiting an arbitration hearing.
 

  b. Are attorneys prohibited per se from including a reasonable fee recovery provision in contingent fee agreements that governs the termination of the attorney-client relations prior to the occurrence of the contingency.
 

  c. Are discharged attorneys entitled only to the equitable remedy of
  
   quantum meruit
  
  for services rendered to former clients.
 

  d. Is the
  
   quantum meruit
  
  equitable remedy for services rendered to former clients exclusive where a termination provision is included in a contingent fee agreement, and that provision is not challenged and established to be either excessive or unconscionable?