I took over a case with a prior lawyer's lien on the file. The client says there was no fee deal and objects to paying. Can the prior lawyer be paid?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney represents a client in a matter previously handled by a prior attorney. The prior attorney and the client did not have a fee agreement. When the file was given to the inquiring attorney, there was a lien on the file for services rendered by the prior attorney. The case was settled, and the client objects to paying the former attorney, stating that there was no fee agreement and that the amount of the lien does not reflect the services rendered. The attorney asked whether the prior attorney can be paid over the client's objections.

The panel said Rule 1.5(e) addresses the issue: a division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if (1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility; (2) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers; and (3) the total fee is reasonable. From the facts, it appears the client never consented to a fee division arrangement. The panel added that the fees owed to the prior attorney are determined by quantum meruit, based on the work performed before termination, citing Opinion 91-71.

The panel concluded that the attorney should keep the fee amount in an escrow account until the dispute is resolved, and that if the fee dispute between the parties cannot be resolved, the parties may need to seek guidance from a tribunal, citing Opinion 92-47.

In practice

Under this opinion, a successor attorney holding settlement proceeds against which a prior attorney has asserted a disputed lien should not simply pay the prior attorney over the client's objection where the Rule 1.5(e) fee-division conditions (including client non-objection) are not met. The opinion directs that the prior attorney's entitlement is measured by quantum meruit for pre-termination work, that the disputed amount be held in escrow pending resolution, and that an unresolved dispute may require a tribunal's guidance.

Common questions

Q: Can I just pay the prior attorney's lien out of the settlement over my client's objection?

A: Per the opinion, the Rule 1.5(e) fee-division conditions are not met because the client never consented, so the attorney should keep the fee amount in escrow until the dispute is resolved rather than pay over the objection.

Q: How is the prior attorney's fee measured when there was no fee agreement?

A: Per the opinion, the fees owed to the prior attorney are determined by quantum meruit, based on the work performed before termination.

Q: What if the fee dispute cannot be resolved between the parties?

A: Per the opinion, the parties may need to seek guidance from a tribunal.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 1.5(e) (division of fees), corresponding to Model Rule 1.5(e). The panel read Rule 1.5(e) as permitting a division between lawyers not in the same firm only on the three stated conditions, found the client-consent condition unmet, and turned to quantum meruit and escrow of the disputed funds pending resolution.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.5 (fees; division of fees)
• RI RPC 1.5(e)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• RI EAP Opinion 91-71 (prior attorney's fee determined by quantum meruit)
• RI EAP Opinion 92-47 (holding disputed funds; seeking a tribunal's guidance)

See also

• RI EAP Op. 92-47: Holding Settlement Funds Subject to a Third-Party Claim
• RI EAP Op. 92-34: Disputed Contingent Fee Held and Arbitrated Under Rule 1.15

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992 (Opinion 92-52), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.5 as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, which amended Rule 1.5 (fees), including the fee-division provisions. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2092-52.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion 92-52
Issued August 12, 1992

An attorney seeks Panel advice regarding the division of a fee with another attorney. The attorney represents a client in a matter that was previously handled by a prior attorney. The prior attorney and the client did not have a fee agreement. When the file was given to the attorney, there was a lien on the file for services rendered by the prior attorney. The case was settled and the client objects to paying the former attorney. The client states that there was no agreement for fees and that the amount of the lien does not reflect the services rendered on the case. The attorney asks whether the prior attorney can be paid over the client's objections.

The Panel advises that Rule 1.5(e) addresses this issue specifically. It states that:

A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:

(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;

(2) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and

(3) the total fee is reasonable.

According to the Rule stated above, a fee division may be made if the attorney had a written agreement with the client. From the facts supplied to the Panel, it appears that the client never consented to a fee division arrangement. In addition, the fees owed to the prior attorney are determined by quantum meruit, based on the work performed before termination. See Opinion #91-71. The Panel believes that the attorney should keep the fee amount in an escrow account until the dispute is resolved. If the fee dispute between the parties cannot be resolved, then the parties may need to seek the guidance from a tribunal. See Opinion #92-47.