## Facts

- Barry Pucello was injured in a motor-vehicle accident on February 2, 1979.
- After a coworker provided his name, attorney Allen L. Feingold called Pucello; Pucello said he was unwell and would call back the next day.
- Feingold recommended a doctor and arranged an appointment for Pucello.
- The next day, Pucello discussed the possibility of Feingold’s representation and gave basic accident information; no fee terms were discussed.
- Before meeting Pucello in person, Feingold performed preliminary work, including inspecting the accident site, taking photographs, obtaining the police report, and securing an admission of liability from the other driver.
- Near the end of February 1979, Feingold mailed Pucello a proposed contingency-fee agreement calling for a 50/50 split of any recovery after costs.
- Pucello rejected the proposed fee and retained other counsel; he told Feingold he could keep the materials Feingold had gathered, and Feingold did not forward the file to the new attorney.
- About a year later, Feingold sued Pucello seeking compensation in quantum meruit for the value of services allegedly performed.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney who performs work for a prospective client, without an agreed fee arrangement and before the client retains the attorney, may recover in quantum meruit when the prospective client later hires different counsel.
2. Whether the parties’ communications and conduct created an implied contract obligating the prospective client to pay for the attorney’s preliminary services.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed judgment for Pucello.
- The court held that the parties did not form an attorney–client relationship and did not reach an enforceable agreement, express or implied, for representation or compensation.
- Because there was no retention and no meeting of the minds, Feingold was not entitled to quantum meruit recovery for pre-agreement work.
- The court accepted the trial court’s determination that Feingold chose to proceed without securing essential terms and therefore acted at his own risk.

## Legal Principles

- Quantum meruit is an equitable remedy; a claimant seeking equitable relief must show circumstances making it unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without payment.
- An attorney generally cannot recover in quantum meruit for services performed before being retained where there is no attorney–client relationship and no express or implied contract establishing an obligation to pay.
- A client’s potential receipt of incidental benefits from an attorney’s unilateral pre-retention efforts does not, by itself, create an implied contractual duty to compensate the attorney.
- Quantum meruit principles applicable to attorneys discharged mid-representation do not apply when the prospective client never retained the attorney in the first place.

## Conclusion

The court denied an attorney’s quantum meruit claim for preliminary work performed before any retention or fee agreement, concluding that without an attorney–client relationship or implied contract, the attorney assumed the risk of nonpayment when the prospective client chose different counsel.


Feingold v. Pucello, 654 A.2d 1093 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)