## Facts

- An estate administrator consulted attorney Eugene R. Spada about a potential medical malpractice claim involving hospital care.
- The client provided materials to Spada, who obtained an expert medical opinion supporting a viable malpractice claim.
- The client later retained attorney Charles R. Harding to pursue the malpractice action; Harding notified Spada of the change and referenced an “equitable” fee split.
- Spada and Harding discussed a fee division in which Spada would receive 33.33% of any counsel fee; Spada sought written confirmation.
- Harding reimbursed Spada’s disbursements; a subsequent letter on Harding’s letterhead stated agreement to a 66.66%/33.33% split.
- The malpractice action settled, and the court fixed total counsel fees at $99,701.48 under Judiciary Law § 474-a.
- Spada petitioned for 33.33% of the counsel fee; Harding cross-petitioned to extinguish Spada’s fee claim.
- The trial court found an attorney–client relationship between Spada and the client, rejected the purported fee-splitting contract, and awarded Spada a 3% quantum meruit fee after a hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether Spada had an attorney–client relationship with the client sufficient to support a fee award after substitution of counsel.
2. Whether the alleged 33.33% fee-splitting agreement between Spada and Harding was enforceable in light of DR 2-107(A)(2) governing division of legal fees.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed that Spada had an attorney–client relationship with the client based on the parties’ conduct and Spada’s work on the matter.
- The court held that Spada was entitled to compensation only in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered before substitution.
- The court affirmed the determination that the purported one-third fee-splitting agreement was unenforceable because it did not satisfy DR 2-107(A)(2).
- The court left in place the post-hearing award granting Spada 3% of the total counsel fee and rejected Harding’s request to eliminate any fee recovery.

## Legal Principles

- An attorney–client relationship may be established by the conduct of the client and lawyer, even without a written retainer, when the lawyer undertakes legal services at the client’s request.
- A discharged or replaced attorney who performed services may recover the reasonable value of those services in quantum meruit.
- A fee-division agreement between lawyers in different firms is unenforceable if it violates DR 2-107(A)(2), including where the division is not shown to be proportional to services performed and the lawyers did not assume joint responsibility in a writing, with appropriate client consent.
- Ethical limits on fee sharing can bar contractual enforcement of a percentage-based split, leaving quantum meruit as the available remedy.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a quantum meruit fee for prior counsel based on an implied attorney–client relationship, but refused to enforce a one-third fee split between successive attorneys because the arrangement failed to comply with DR 2-107(A)(2)’s requirements for fee division among lawyers from different firms.


Ford v. Albany Med. Ctr., 283 A.D.2d 843, 724 N.Y.S.2d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2001)