Schneebalg v. Lincoln Security Life Insurance

225 A.D.2d 684, 639 N.Y.2d 457
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 1996·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

It is well settled that when a dispute about the fee to be paid to a discharged attorney is between the discharged attorney and the incoming attorney, the discharged attorney may elect to receive immediate compensation for the reasonable value of his services based on quantum meruit or he may elect to receive a contingent percentage fee based on his proportionate share of the work performed (see, Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 NY2d 655; Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454; Michels v Drexler, 166 AD2d 695).

The outgoing attorney in this case, the appellant, elected to receive a contingent percentage fee. Since both the appellant and the incoming attorney for the plaintiff appear to have equally contributed to the final settlement of this action, the fee should be divided equally between them. Miller, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Schneebalg v. Lincoln Security Life Insurance, 225 A.D.2d 684, 639 N.Y.2d 457 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 684 (Schneebalg v. Lincoln Security Life Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP v. Friedman, Khafif & Associates
41 A.D.3d 367 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Padilla v. Sansivieri
31 A.D.3d 64 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Malerba v. Clifford
18 A.D.3d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Jacoby & Meyers Law Offices, L. L. P. v. Gorayeb & Associates
282 A.D.2d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Gary E. Rosenberg, P. C. v. McCormack
250 A.D.2d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)