Court Opinion

ID: 9519282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:13:17.101562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:14.077974
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, dissenting: The court avoids considering the effect of Cole’s undisputed concealment from his client of the real reason for attorney Kennelly’s withdrawal from the case by saying that the issue was not raised in the trial court. In so holding the majority has overlooked the fact that the second point in the memorandum accompanying Kravis’s trial court motion to determine the value of Kotin’s and Cole’s legal services urged that Cole be denied compensation “Because of Mr. Cole’s Breach of His Fiduciary Duty of Full Disclosure.” While it is true, as the appellate court opinion notes, that the major emphasis in the trial court was on the absence of an attorney-client relationship, it cannot, in my judgment, fairly be said that the issue of a breach of fiduciary duty has been waived. It is entirely clear that at the time attorney Kennelly withdrew from the case Cole did not inform his client that the withdrawal was caused by Cole’s insistence that he (Cole) should receive at least one half of any fee collected. I simply do not believe this court should permit Cole to. recover on a subsequent contract in view of his breach of his fiduciary duty by concealing the real reason for abrogation of the original agreement with Kennelly. 1 do not agree that permitting recovery on a quantum meruit basis is appropriate, and I would affirm the appellate court. MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER joins in this dissent.