Head v. Aycock

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Head v. Aycock

158 S.E.2d 685, 116 Ga. App. 739, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 943

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 20, 1967

Docket43234

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 S.E.2d 685 (Head v. Aycock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Head v. Aycock, 158 S.E.2d 685, 116 Ga. App. 739, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 943 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

The judgment appealed from grew out of a suit for divorce and alimony. The case was transferred to this court by the Supreme Court. The plaintiff wife had employed the apppellant to represent her in the suit. Under the terms of the contract she was not personally indebted to her attorney. Five hundred dollars as attorney’s fees on account was paid by the defendant husband under an order of the trial judge at the interlocutory hearing. The plaintiff thereupon discharged her attorney and employed another. The discharged attorney made a motion to determine the status of plaintiff’s counsel on the ground that he could not be summarily discharged without first being paid a legitimate fee and prayed that the court fix the amount of the fee and specify who should pay it. The trial court entered an order upholding the discharge and reserved until the conclusion of the case the question of whether the defendant husband owes the attorney any additional fee.

“After an attorney at law is employed, not for a contingent fee, but has filed suit for his client, the latter has the right at any time, with or without cause, to discharge the attorney and on motion to have his name as attorney stricken; but the court in which the suit is pending will not ordinarily permit this to be done until the client has paid or secured the attorney reasonable fees for the services which have already been performed, or otherwise protects the attorney as to his claim for fees already earned; and will enter an appropriate order, with such end in view, before granting the motion to have the name stricken.” White v. Aiken, 197 Ga. 29 (2) (28 SE2d 263).

Since the trial court’s order protects the attorney as to any possible claim for additional fees that he may have earned before his discharge, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Bberhardt, J., concur. *740 Argued November 7, 1967 Decided November 20, 1967 Rehearing denied November 30,1967. Hugh G. Head, Jr., for appellant. Garland & Garland, Reuben A. Garland, George Mitchell, George G. Finch, G. Seals Aiken, M. L. Kahn, Walter Aycock, for appellees.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hall, Judge.

The judgment appealed from grew out of a suit for divorce and alimony. The case was transferred to this court by the Supreme Court. The plaintiff wife had employed the apppellant to represent her in the suit. Under the terms of the contract she was not personally indebted to her attorney. Five hundred dollars as attorney’s fees on account was paid by the defendant husband under an order of the trial judge at the interlocutory hearing. The plaintiff thereupon discharged her attorney and employed another. The discharged attorney made a motion to determine the status of plaintiff’s counsel on the ground that he could not be summarily discharged without first being paid a legitimate fee and prayed that the court fix the amount of the fee and specify who should pay it. The trial court entered an order upholding the discharge and reserved until the conclusion of the case the question of whether the defendant husband owes the attorney any additional fee.

“After an attorney at law is employed, not for a contingent fee, but has filed suit for his client, the latter has the right at any time, with or without cause, to discharge the attorney and on motion to have his name as attorney stricken; but the court in which the suit is pending will not ordinarily permit this to be done until the client has paid or secured the attorney reasonable fees for the services which have already been performed, or otherwise protects the attorney as to his claim for fees already earned; and will enter an appropriate order, with such end in view, before granting the motion to have the name stricken.” White v. Aiken, 197 Ga. 29 (2) (28 SE2d 263).

Since the trial court’s order protects the attorney as to any possible claim for additional fees that he may have earned before his discharge, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Bberhardt, J., concur. *740 Argued November 7, 1967 Decided November 20, 1967 Rehearing denied November 30,1967. Hugh G. Head, Jr., for appellant. Garland & Garland, Reuben A. Garland, George Mitchell, George G. Finch, G. Seals Aiken, M. L. Kahn, Walter Aycock, for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E.2d 685, 116 Ga. App. 739, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/head-v-aycock-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack