## Facts

- Jeannie Rosseland Campbell was seriously injured in a 1992 vehicle collision with a van driven by Patrick N. Lund and owned by Bozeman Investors of Duluth d/b/a Holiday Inn of Bozeman.
- The insurer paid for property damage and several thousand dollars of Campbell’s medical expenses, and later made an unsolicited settlement offer that Campbell rejected.
- Campbell filed a personal-injury action in 1994.
- Campbell retained attorneys Channing Hartelius and Gregory Morgan under a contingent-fee agreement to represent her in the suit.
- After substantial work by Hartelius and Morgan and later substitution of counsel, the tort claim settled at a 1996 settlement conference under a confidentiality term that kept the settlement amount undisclosed.
- Hartelius and Morgan filed a notice of attorney’s lien in the tort action, seeking attorney fees, costs, and reimbursement of advances from the settlement proceeds.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in awarding Hartelius and Morgan attorney fees totaling $8,800 based on the reasonable value of services performed before termination.
2. Whether the Supreme Court could consider a medical report (Dr. Peter Wendt) not made part of the district court record.
3. Whether the district court erred by not requiring Campbell to disclose the confidential settlement amount to resolve the lien and fee dispute.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment validating the attorney’s lien and awarding $8,800 in fees to Hartelius and Morgan.
- The court held the fee award reflected the reasonable value of the attorneys’ pre-termination services and was not an abuse of discretion.
- The court declined to consider Dr. Wendt’s report because it was outside the appellate record.
- The court held the district court was not required to compel disclosure of the confidential settlement amount to decide the fee dispute.

## Legal Principles

- A client may discharge counsel, but discharged contingent-fee attorneys may recover the reasonable value of services rendered before termination (quantum meruit) rather than the full contingent fee.
- A properly asserted attorney’s lien may be enforced against settlement proceeds to secure payment of adjudicated fees and related recoverable amounts.
- Appellate review is confined to the record made in the trial court; materials not introduced below will not be considered on appeal.
- A court may resolve an attorney-fee dispute without requiring disclosure of a confidential settlement amount when the reasonable value of services can be determined from other evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an attorney-lien judgment awarding discharged contingent-fee counsel $8,800 in quantum meruit, refused to consider extra-record medical evidence, and permitted resolution of the fee dispute without forcing disclosure of a confidential settlement amount.


Campbell v. Bozeman Invs. of Duluth, 290 Mont. 374, 964 P.2d 41 (Mont. 1998)