## Facts

- A decedent’s will made small bequests to six nieces and nephews and left the residue to charities.
- Two nephews retained attorney J. H. Felton under written contingent-fee contracts for 50% of benefits recovered in a will contest.
- Four other heirs (a nephew and three nieces) expressly refused to hire Felton, declined to sign any fee contract, and did not participate in directing the litigation.
- Felton prosecuted the will contest, resulting in invalidation of the charitable dispositions and increasing the inheritances of all heirs, including the four non-clients.
- After distribution, the four non-clients accepted their increased shares but refused to pay any portion of Felton’s fee.
- Felton sued the four non-clients, alleging an implied contract for legal services and seeking to impose a lien against their distributive shares.
- The trial court awarded Felton fees and recognized a lien against the non-clients’ shares.
- On rehearing, the state supreme court reversed and ordered dismissal as to the non-client heirs.

## Issues

1. Whether an implied contract to pay attorney’s fees arises when intended beneficiaries expressly refused to hire the attorney but later received benefits from the attorney’s successful litigation.
2. Whether an attorney may impose a lien for fees against the distributive shares of estate beneficiaries who neither retained the attorney nor assented to representation.

## Decision

- The court held that no implied contract of employment existed between Felton and the four heirs who refused to retain him.
- The court held that mere receipt of benefits from litigation does not create an implied promise to pay attorney’s fees where the recipients did not knowingly accept services under circumstances indicating an expectation of payment.
- The court ruled that the contingent-fee contracts with the two retaining heirs could not bind the four non-retaining heirs absent authorization, agency, or other basis to impute consent.
- Because there was no obligation to pay fees, the court rejected imposing an attorney’s lien against the non-clients’ distributive shares.
- The judgment for Felton against the four non-clients was reversed and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss the action as to them.

## Legal Principles

- An attorney’s recovery in implied contract requires actual employment or knowing acceptance of services under circumstances supporting a reasonable expectation of payment.
- A person’s passive receipt of benefits from another’s litigation, without assent to representation, does not alone create liability for attorney’s fees.
- An express refusal to retain counsel is strong evidence negating any inference of assent needed for an implied attorney-client contract.
- Contingent-fee agreements bind only those who enter into them or validly authorize them; they do not extend to third parties who did not consent.
- An attorney’s lien against a recovery presupposes a valid underlying obligation to pay fees; absent such obligation, no lien attaches.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that heirs who expressly refused to hire an attorney could not be charged for the attorney’s contingent fee, nor could their estate shares be subjected to an attorney’s lien, even though they benefited from the attorney’s successful will contest brought on behalf of other heirs.


Felton v. Finley, 69 Idaho 381, 209 P.2d 899 (Idaho 1949)