## Facts

- Millicent Somuah and her daughter were seriously injured in a Maryland taxicab accident.
- While Somuah was hospitalized in Maryland, her brother contacted attorney Jeremy Flachs about representing her personal injury claim.
- Somuah retained Flachs under a one-third contingent fee agreement.
- At retention, Flachs did not disclose that he was not licensed to practice law in Maryland, the state where the accident occurred and where litigation was likely.
- Flachs performed investigative and preparatory work on the claim and later associated Maryland counsel.
- When Flachs first disclosed his non-licensure to Somuah, she became dissatisfied, discharged him, and refused to pay for his prior work.
- Flachs sued for the reasonable value of his services (quantum meruit) and obtained a jury verdict; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney’s failure at retention to disclose non-licensure in the likely forum state constitutes cause for the client to discharge the attorney.
2. Whether a contingent-fee attorney discharged for such cause, absent serious misconduct, may recover quantum meruit, and when that claim accrues.

## Decision

- The court held the nondisclosure gave the client a good-faith basis to be dissatisfied and to discharge the attorney for cause.
- The court held the attorney was not automatically barred from compensation; absent serious misconduct, he could seek quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered before discharge.
- The court held that in contingent-fee matters, the discharged attorney’s quantum meruit claim does not accrue until the contingency is fulfilled (i.e., the client obtains a recovery).
- The judgment was modified to reflect the accrual rule while preserving the attorney’s ability to pursue reasonable compensation.

## Legal Principles

- A client may discharge counsel, but whether the discharge is for cause affects the attorney’s entitlement to compensation.
- Failure to disclose non-licensure in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose and where suit is likely to be filed can constitute cause because it reasonably undermines client confidence.
- “Cause” based on good-faith dissatisfaction is distinct from “serious misconduct”; only serious misconduct may justify forfeiture of all compensation.
- A discharged contingent-fee attorney may recover in quantum meruit, measured by (1) the benefit ultimately obtained by the client attributable to the attorney’s services and (2) the nature and gravity of the reason for discharge.
- In contingent-fee cases, a discharged attorney’s quantum meruit claim accrues only upon the client’s recovery, not at the time of discharge.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that an attorney’s failure to disclose non-licensure in the likely forum state provides a client cause to terminate representation, but it also permitted quantum meruit recovery absent serious misconduct and required that any such claim in a contingent-fee case wait until the client actually obtains a recovery.


Somuah v. Flachs, 721 A.2d 680 (Md. 1998)