Court Opinion

ID: 9794938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:14:31.499904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:29.642155
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(concurring in the result) .
I concur in the result but desire to add the following:
The main opinion says:
* * * It is fair to say that the defendant by its pleadings attempted to put the plaintiffs to their proof both as to the quantity of the services rendered and the reasonable value thereof.
An attempt to raise an issue is not grounds to withstand a motion for summary judgment when facts are set forth in affidavit *158form which facts would be admissible in evidence at trial and sufficient to show that no genuine issue of fact remains to be tried. U.R.C.P. 56(c) and (e). We should look to plaintiffs’ affidavit to see if it meets this standard. The joint affidavit of the plaintiffs insofar as it refers to reasonable value of services rendered is as follows :
* * * that the sum of $6,100.00 for reported hours spent, being 244 hours at $25.00 per hour is within the schedule of attorney’s fees accepted in the County of Salt Lake, State of Utah. * * *
This statement of a fact is not sufficient to sustain a summary judgment where issues are raised by the pleadings because the court must still determine whether $25 per hour is. a reasonable charge even assuming that the approved bar schedule of fees does say that a lawyer should charge $25 per hour for his services.
In their brief plaintiffs argue:
* * * With these considerations, with the Court’s own ability to assess values of services, * * * plaintiffs submit it was well within the province of the District Court to evaluate plaintiffs’ claim and approve it. * * *
The court cannot evaluate evidence on summary judgment, and even at trial the court cannot fix an attorney’s fee except where evidence has been introduced on the matter or a stipulation entered into by the parties as to how the judge may determine it. See F. M. A. Financial Corporation v. Build, Inc., 17 Utah 2d 80, 404 P.2d 670; Hurd v. Ford, 74 Utah 46, 276 P. 908.
When the relationship between a lawyer and his client has deteriorated to a point of litigation, more than a mere dispute between ordinary litigants is involved. The good will between lawyers and the public is always affected to some degree when a suit is filed.
It is generally held that only a lawyer can know the value of legal services rendered, and it would seem that no great inconvenience to a plaintiff lawyer would result in having proof made in open court as to the reasonable value of his services rendered, where he would be subject to cross-examination and where other witnesses may offer contradictory evidence. Certainly the client must feel better if the fee is fixed upon evidence given in court rather than by fiat of the lawyer.
HENRIOD, J., not participating.