Source: GOESEL v. BOLEY INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD., Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2015 – Google Scholar
This case concerns an appeal by a law firm of a decision by the district court to reduce a contingent fee award.
The parties agreed to a contingent fee under which the lawyers would receive one-third of any award and the expenses would be covered by the clients.
Source: PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC v. JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Tex: Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2015 – Google Scholar
This is a decision affirming an arbitrator’s award of legal fees to Jenner & Block. The case is a typical attorney-client fee dispute, but here the Court enforced the parties’ arbitration clause.
The fee dispute arose out of patent litigation handled by Jenner & Block for Parallel Networks. Jenner & Block ultimately withdrew from the litigation after locating successor counsel for Parallel Networks. Jenner & Block cited the client’s failure to pay invoices on a timely basis and its lack of economic resources to continue the litigation.
EXACT SOFTWARE NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. DeMOISEY, Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2013 – Google Scholar.
This is a dispute between an attorney and a client concerning an attorney lien. Such disputes are common. This case illustrates the correct way to protect a disputed legal fee with an attorney lien.
The Sixth Circuit has affirmed a legal fee award of $1.4 million to a lawyer who brought proceedings to enforce an attorney lien. The underlying dispute was a software licensing dispute between two companies, which occurred in the federal district court. Infocon was to receive a $5 million settlement from Exact Software, Inc. Just before the settlement was finalized, Infocon fired its lawyer, J Fox DeMoisey. DeMoisey placed a charging lien on the proceeds of the litigation. The district court froze the disputed portion of the settlement ($1.2 million) pending the outcome of litigation.
Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog