In California, an attorney assisting the originating attorney with a case cannot sue the client for an unpaid fee absent a signed written agreement; the recourse is against the originating attorney for quantum meriut and unjust enrichment

A client’s lawyer (lawyer #1) had entered into a contract with lawyer #2 to contribute services and share in a contingent fee.  After the case settled, lawyer #1 failed to pay the agreed portion of the fee, and lawyer #2 sued both lawyer #1 and the client on theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment and sought the reasonable value of the services she had rendered.  The Court of Appeal noted that a suit against a client was a case of first impression in California.  The Court, as have other courts addressing somewhat similar matters, focused on the primary error in lawyer #2’s case, to wit, the lack of a contract signed by the client as required by Rule 2-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  This failure prevented recourse to the client.

 

Additionally, the Court noted that quantum meruit and unjust enrichment causes of action against the client were properly dismissed because “Quantum meruit refers to the well-established principle that ‘the law implies a promise to pay for services performed under circumstances disclosing that they were not gratuitously rendered.’ [Citation.]  To recover in quantum meruit, a party need not prove the existence of a contract [citations], but it must show the circumstances were such that ‘the services were rendered under some understanding or expectation of both parties that compensation therefor was to be made.’ [Citation.] The burden is on the person making the quantum meruit claim to show the value of his or her services and that they were rendered at the request of the person to be charged. [Citations.]’ Allowing an attorney to recover the reasonable value of his or her services from a client is premised on the services being requested by the client. Here, [lawyer #2] alleges [client] knew she was working on their case and that she expected payment. But she [lawyer #2] does not allege [client] asked her to work for [client] or that [client] agreed to pay her. Rather, her financial arrangement was with [lawyer #1]."

 

As such, the court noted that lawyer #2 can sue lawyer #1 on these theories (unjust enrichment and quantum meruit) without the need for a client signature.

 

Strong v. Beydoun (2008) 166 Cal.App.4^th 1398.