Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v. Universal Paragon Corporation, 2010 WL 3398828, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 2010)

Brief Summary
The California Court of Appeal, First District, held that a contingent fee agreement based on the value of the client’s pre-settlement damages assessment, rather than the actual value of settlement, was not unconscionable. And despite the existence of an ethical rule pertaining to unconscionability, the court held that the common law unconscionability test applied.

Complete Summary
A law firm and its corporate client entered into a fee agreement whereby the firm would receive reduced hourly rates as well as a 16 percent contingent fee. Because the parties knew that resolution of the underlying matter could involve the conveyance of real property in addition to, or in lieu of damages, they agreed to apply the 16 percent to the greater of the fair market value of the property or the client’s most recent damages assessment made for settlement purposes. During litigation the client estimated damages to be between $50 and $80 million. Shortly thereafter, the matter settled and the client received the property (fair market value: $18.75 million) along with $6 million in damages. The firm and the client disagreed on how to calculate the contingent fee and entered arbitration.

The arbitrator decided that the firm was entitled to 16 percent of the client’s most recent damages assessment. The arbitrator based her calculation on the lower end of the most recent assessment (i.e., $50 million), and, per the parties’ agreement, reduced the contingent fee by half of the amount already billed under the hourly fee agreement as well as litigation costs. The firm petitioned the superior court to affirm the award, which it did. The client appealed, arguing that the agreement was unconscionable and that it created a conflict of interest.

The Court of Appeal held that, given the parties’ equal bargaining power and sophistication, there was no procedural unconscionability, and that in comparison to the result obtained for the client, the fee was not substantively unconscionable. The court further held that California Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 4-200(A), which prohibits unconscionable fee agreements, does not supersede the common law test of unconscionability. The court noted that although RPC 4-200(A) sets out a number of factors to be considered in determining unconscionability, those factors can be grouped into either the procedural or substantive categories. The court held that both categories must be present for a finding of unconscionability. The court based this holding on the fact that the State Bar, upon adopting RPC 4-200(A), noted that this rule reflects existing California Supreme Court decisions.

Finally, the court held that basing the contingent fee on a damages assessment rather than the actual recovery did not create a conflict of interest. On this point, the court noted that all fee agreements involve a potential conflict, and that the arbitrator found that the firm’s representation was not influenced by the structure of the fee agreement.

Significance of Opinion
Although attorney-client dealings, in contrast to dealings between non-attorney parties, are generally subject to an additional layer of ethical standards, the court in this opinion concludes that the common law unconscionability standard is unaltered in the attorney-client fee agreement context.

This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.

REGISTER NOW for the Tenth Annual Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference and receive a 10% Early Bird Discount before December 1, 2010

Attend the Tenth Anniversary of the industry's premier event focused on current and important developments in the law and litigation of malpractice claims, legal malpractice insurance and risk management strategies. Each conference panel examines recent case law and significant developments throughout the last year. One and one-half days will be devoted to legal malpractice (February 16-17), and one and one-half days will be devoted to risk management (February 17-18). The Conference will be held in Chicago at The Westin Chicago River North Hotel.

Earn up to 15 hours of CLE credit, including up to 6.50 ethics credit!

Conference Topics

Legal Malpractice Sessions (February 16-17) 

• Settle and Sue: Is Legal Malpractice a Remedy for An Inappropriate Settlement or for the Settlement That Did Not Happen?
• What You Need to Know About Lawyers’ Liability Under the Federal and State Securities Laws
• Establishing a Fiduciary Breach
• Using Pretrial Remedies — Anti-SLAPP Statutes, and Other Evidentiary Early Disposition Motions
• Significant Developments in Litigating Legal Malpractice Claims
• Insurance Law
• Stump the Panel

Legal Malpractice/Risk Management Cross-Over Sessions (February 17)

• The Insurance Marketplace and Considerations
• Who is a “Partner” — The Legal Implications of Titles
• Mitigating or Avoiding the Loss

Risk Management Sessions (February 17-18)

• The General Counsel Forum
• Don’t Ignore the “Basics” — Engagement, Disengagement and End-of-Representation Letters
• The Growing Threats to Client (and Firm) Data — Managing Technology to Meet the Challenges
• High Tech Tools — and Traps — for Mergers and Lateral Hiring
• On the Horizon: Is Susskind Right? Technology and the Future of Large Law Firms

Registration Fees

$1,300 for the Entire Conference — February 16-18
$925 for the Legal Malpractice Sessions Only — February 16-17
$925 for the Risk Management Sessions Only — February 17-18

Discounts (maximum 15% discount per registration)
Returning registrants receive 5% off the conference price Multiple registrants receive 15% off when two or more colleagues from the same company register for the conference
Early birds receive 10% until December 1, 2010

For more information, please visit www.LMRM.com or click here to Register Now!

To speak with the Conference Planner, Katherine McCormack, please call 312-704-3329