## Facts

- The Dormans retained attorney Andre R. Weitzman and the Braiterman firm under a contingent-fee agreement providing a 50% fee if the suit was tried, measured on amounts recovered by settlement or verdict, plus reimbursement of costs.
- The Dormans sued Jacob Fraidin and related corporations and obtained a jury verdict of $366,949.
- After the verdict, Fraidin and the Dormans met without notifying counsel and negotiated a secret settlement for $50,000.
- Shortly before finalizing the settlement, the Dormans discharged Weitzman and the Braiterman firm.
- The attorneys sued (1) Fraidin and his corporations for tortious interference with the contingent-fee contract and (2) the Dormans for breach of the fee agreement.
- The jury awarded the attorneys $183,474 against Fraidin (approximately 50% of the verdict, with adjustments) and $25,000 against the Dormans for breach.
- Evidence of Fraidin’s finances was admitted, including statements indicating his net worth was sufficient to satisfy the $366,949 judgment.

## Issues

1. In a tortious interference claim involving an attorney contingent-fee contract, may damages be measured by the attorneys’ fee expectancy based on the jury verdict rather than by the later secret settlement amount.
2. Whether Fraidin was entitled to a setoff or reduction of the interference judgment based on a separate judgment against the clients for breach of contract arising from the same fee loss.
3. Whether the evidence supported judgments in favor of additional attorney defendants sued by the attorneys on related interference theories.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the $183,474 judgment against Fraidin and his corporations for tortious interference with contractual relations.
- The court rejected Fraidin’s argument that his liability was capped at $25,000 (50% of the $50,000 settlement).
- The court held the jury could value the lost contingent fee by reference to the $366,949 verdict, supported by evidence that the judgment was collectible.
- The court denied Fraidin’s request for a $25,000 setoff based on the separate contract judgment against the Dormans.
- On cross-appeal, the court affirmed judgments in favor of the additional attorney defendants, finding insufficient proof of intentional and improper interference by them.

## Legal Principles

- Tortious interference with contractual relations requires a contract, the defendant’s knowledge of it, intentional interference inducing breach or hindering performance, and resulting damages.
- Damages for interference may be measured by the injured party’s contractual expectancy as it existed before the interference; an interfering party cannot use a reduced, wrongfully procured settlement to limit damages.
- A post-verdict jury award may be used to value an attorney’s contingent-fee expectancy where evidence supports that the underlying judgment had substantial, collectible value.
- Separate liabilities in tort (interfering third party) and contract (breaching client) do not automatically require an appellate setoff absent a demonstrated double recovery; satisfaction and related post-judgment doctrines address any duplication.
- Liability for interference by additional actors requires proof of intentional and improper inducement or participation with the requisite wrongful intent.

## Conclusion

The court held that intentional, secret post-verdict settlement conduct interfering with an attorney contingent-fee agreement supports damages measured by the attorney’s expectancy in the verdict—when collectibility is shown—and that a tortfeasor is not entitled to an automatic reduction based on a separate contract judgment against the client.


Fraidin v. Weitzman, 93 Md. App. 168 (Ct. Spec. App. 1992)