## Facts

- Jeffrey Rohan, a police officer, was the beneficiary of a $100,000 life-insurance policy on his wife’s life.
- Rohan’s wife was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer less than a month after applying for the policy and died about one month after the policy issued, creating concern that the insurer might scrutinize the claim.
- Rohan retained attorney Leon Rosenblatt to help collect the policy proceeds from First Colony Life Insurance Company.
- Although the insurer had not stated it would contest payment, Rosenblatt repeatedly told Rohan that suit would likely be required and that the litigation would be “horrendous” given the timing of the application, diagnosis, and death.
- Rohan wanted to pay an hourly fee but said he could not afford to do so.
- Rohan and Rosenblatt entered into a one-third contingent-fee arrangement; they did not discuss what Rosenblatt would be paid if the insurer paid without litigation.
- The insurer promptly paid the policy proceeds directly to Rohan without any lawsuit filed by Rosenblatt.
- After receiving the proceeds, Rohan informed Rosenblatt that payment had been made, asked about the fee, and paid Rosenblatt one-third of the proceeds under the agreement.
- Rohan later contacted the insurer to determine what work Rosenblatt had performed, concluded the services were minimal, retained new counsel, and sued Rosenblatt to recover the allegedly unreasonable and excessive fee.

## Issues

1. May a court find a one-third contingent fee unreasonable and excessive when the insurer pays life-insurance proceeds promptly without litigation or meaningful resistance?
2. Can a client seek return of an excessive fee after paying it pursuant to a contingent-fee agreement?
3. If the contingent fee is excessive, what remedy is appropriate—enforcement of the contract amount, or a reduced award measured by a reasonable fee for the services actually provided?

## Decision

- The Connecticut Superior Court concluded that, under the circumstances, Rosenblatt’s retention of the full one-third contingent fee was unreasonable and excessive.
- The court determined that a contingent-fee agreement is not immune from judicial review for reasonableness, even if it appeared acceptable when signed.
- The court rejected the argument that Rohan’s payment of the fee, standing alone, barred him from later challenging it as excessive.
- The court ordered Rosenblatt to refund the portion of the contingent fee that exceeded a reasonable fee for the limited services actually performed, effectively limiting Rosenblatt to a reasonable fee (quantum meruit) rather than the full contractual percentage.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney fee agreements, including contingent-fee contracts, are subject to judicial review for reasonableness.
- Under Rule 1.5 of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may not charge or collect an unreasonable fee; the court may evaluate reasonableness using factors such as time and labor, difficulty, results obtained, customary fees, and the lawyer’s experience and ability.
- The reasonableness of a contingent fee may be assessed in light of what actually occurred in the representation, including the services rendered and the risk of nonpayment that the lawyer actually bore.
- Because the attorney-client relationship is fiduciary in nature, a client’s consent to a fee term does not automatically validate a fee that is disproportionate to the work performed and risk assumed.
- Payment of a fee does not, by itself, constitute waiver or ratification that prevents later judicial review of an allegedly excessive fee.
- When a contingent fee is excessive as applied, the court may order restitution and limit the lawyer’s recovery to the reasonable value of services.

## Conclusion

Rohan v. Rosenblatt holds that a one-third contingent fee for collecting life-insurance proceeds can be excessive when the insurer pays promptly without litigation, and that a client who paid such a fee may later recover the excess; the court limited the lawyer to a reasonable fee based on the services actually provided and ordered a refund of the remainder.


Rohan v. Rosenblatt, 25 Conn. L. Rptr. 287 (unpublished), 1999 WL 643501 (1999)