## Facts

- A law firm retained Harley Copp, an automotive engineer, as an expert witness in a products-liability case.
- Before retention, the firm stated its client would be responsible for paying Copp’s fees.
- Copp communicated a policy that he would not accept work if payment depended on reimbursement from the attorney’s client.
- Evidence showed a local custom that lawyers who arrange expert services are generally expected to pay unless a different agreement is clearly made.
- Copp performed substantial work and testified at trial; the client paid some expenses directly while Copp was in town.
- After trial, Copp sent a final invoice through the firm expecting payment within 30 days.
- The client refused to pay the full amount and would pay only a fraction of the final bill.
- The firm initially offered to sue the client to collect Copp’s full fee without mentioning any charge to Copp for the collection effort, but later sued the client on its own behalf.
- Copp sued the firm for the unpaid portion of his expert-witness fees, and the trial court entered judgment for Copp.

## Issues

1. Whether a law firm that retains an expert for a client is personally liable for the expert’s fees when local custom presumes attorney responsibility and there is no clear agreement shifting the risk of nonpayment solely to the client.
2. Whether the firm’s offer to sue the client “on Copp’s behalf,” without discussing a fee, affected the firm’s liability or created an enforceable obligation to provide free legal services.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Copp.
- The court held the firm was personally liable for the unpaid expert fees because the firm did not clearly and explicitly shift sole payment responsibility to the client in light of local custom and Copp’s stated condition for accepting the engagement.
- The court rejected the firm’s attempt to rely on its offer to sue the client as a basis to avoid liability; the firm’s conduct supported the finding that the firm bore primary responsibility for the obligation.

## Legal Principles

- When an attorney retains an expert, evidence of local custom may inform contract meaning and can support a presumption that the attorney is responsible for payment unless a different agreement is clearly made.
- To avoid personal liability for an expert’s fees, an attorney must obtain a clear, explicit agreement that the client alone bears the risk of nonpayment.
- A statement that the client “will pay” is insufficient to shift the risk to the client where the expert has made clear that the engagement is conditioned on not depending solely on client reimbursement.
- A firm’s conduct consistent with protecting the expert as a creditor (including offering to pursue the client for the unpaid balance without discussing fees) may support a finding that the firm accepted primary responsibility for payment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability against the law firm for the unpaid expert-witness fees because, given local custom and the expert’s expressed condition, the firm failed to make a clear agreement placing the risk of nonpayment solely on the client.


Copp v. Breskin, 782 P.2d 1104 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989)