Court Opinion

ID: 9606919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:54:07.778802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:36.365055
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, C. J.,
dissenting: I am respectfully entering my dissent to the court’s opinion. The comments and judgment of the district court follow:
“Well, the easy way to do this is to take it under advisement and go back and quietly write a letter, but I never did anything the easy way. I would rather make my decision right now, so here it is.
“I believe Mr. Palmer said he was 85 years old. He has testified, and I know it is a fact, that he’s had a long association with the Carson family, first with old Dave and later on with David W. I believe he said this went over the past 30 years, 33, maybe. I believe he said it started in 1940.
“The evidence does disclose that Mrs. . . . came to Mr. Palmer, she was in fact, his client. She took her case to Tom when she needed a lawyer. By this time Tom was well along in years, was not coming to1 the Courthouse every day. And I take it from the evidence that quite often David did things for Mr. Palmer in Mr. Palmer’s name.
*148“Mr. Palmer, either directly or through Mr. Carson, referred Mrs. . . . to Mr. Martin. I have to think that Mr. Carson knew Mrs. . . . although on the evidence here, she didn’t know Mr. Carson, she didn’t know Mr. Martin, either one.
“At any rate, Mrs. . . . continued to seek comfort and advice from Mr. Palmer. Some of this was furnished directly by Mr. Palmer, some for Mr. Palmer, apparently, by Mr. Carson. This goes back, again, to the strange workings of that office up there, which is like no other, but maybe all law offices are different. One example that she went back was some days later for, I don’t know why, but through Mr. Palmer, either directly or indirectly, Mrs. . . . was put in touch with the Hackler, Anderson firm.
“Ultimately, a fee of $87,500 was allowed to cover all services rendered on Mrs. . . . behalf by all of her attorneys. So then we go to this code of ethics which was adopted by the Kansas Supreme Court, ‘A lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services with another lawyer who is not a partner in or associate in his law office, unless first: The client consents to employment of the other lawyer.’ There isn’t any question about that. ‘After a full disclosure that a division of fees will be made.’ There is no- clear evidence that any disclosure was made that there would be a division of fees. I have read Mrs. . . . deposition and that question, frankly, was never asked her. She was told, there isn’t much question about this, that Mr. . . . would be expected to take care of all of her legal expenses. In a way, that satisfies the requirement, I think, that a disclosure be made to her that there would be a division of fees.
“Then we jump to the third one, that the total fee of the lawyers does not clearly exceed reasonable compensation for all legal services they rendered the client. I think this requirement is made SO' the crux of this controversy is, number two, the division is made in proportion to the services performed and responsibility assumed by each. It’s been apparent to everybody from the start that was the crux of this lawsuit.
“The fee of a lawyer in a divorce case where he represents the woman, in my mind, is made up of five things: First, getting the client; secondly, preparing the case; thirdly, trying or settling the case; fourthly, trying to keep the client happy while the litigation is in progress; and fifthly, convincing the Court of the value of the lawyers’ services and the size of the allowance that should be made. Those five things go into' the — what you ultimately get paid in any given case.
“The evidence here is that Mr. Palmer was solely responsible for number one, getting the client, and that he had quite a little bit with number four, which was keeping the client happy. It is made to appear that Mr. Palmer, either personally or with the aid and assistance of Mr. Carson, made one of the major decisions before Mr. Martin was ever brought in the case, and that is, that the case should be filed in Johnson County, where the Courts are used to dealing with moneyed people, which we have not to much occasion to deal with here in Wyandotte County.
“So going back to number two, making a division of the fee in proportion to the services performed and the responsibility assumed by each, I do grant the plaintiff a judgment for $15,000 on the evidence I have heard. This is not a finder’s fee; it is what I consider a fair proportion of the total fee, based on *149the services he performed and responsibility that he assumed. Costs will be taxed against the defendants.
“That’s the best I can do with this lawsuit. It may be that neither side is pleased, but I have given it my honest effort and that’s it. We will keep all the exhibits pending a decision as to appeals taken at that time. Excepting that this Court file ought to go back to Johnson County, I would permit it to be withdrawn and certainly be replaced if there is to be an appeal.”
In my opinion there was substantial evidence to support the findings and judgment of the district court. I would affirm the judgment.
Fromme, J., not participating.