Court Opinion

ID: 9594347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:29:18.236356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:04.739401
License: Public Domain

Judge HEDRICK
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the contingency fee contract in question is void and unenforceable. Furthermore, it is my opinion the trial judge abused his discretion in entering the order allowing the attorneys to intervene in their ex-client’s domestic lawsuit against her husband. The majority, in Footnote #1, seems to agree with the court’s decision, citing a “pre-Rules” case as their sole support for affirming the trial court’s order allowing the intervention. With respect to the court’s exercise of discretion to allow a party to intervene, the pertinent portion of N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 1A-1, Rule 24, North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, provides: “[T]he court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” It seems clear to me that the ruling of the trial court allowing this law firm to intervene in this domestic action for the purpose of enforcing a contingency fee contract had the potential to grossly prejudice both of the original parties. In my opinion, the trial court erred in entering the order allowing the intervention, and I vote to vacate the judgment entered pursuant thereto.