My client's former lawyer quit and now claims a lien on the file. Does the former lawyer still get paid when the lawyer, not the client, ended the case?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney represents a client who was previously represented by another attorney. The former attorney asserted a lien on the client's file for services rendered. The client objects to the lien because it was the former attorney, and not the client, who terminated the attorney-client relationship. The inquiring attorney asked whether the former attorney's lien should be paid in light of the fact that the former attorney terminated the representation.

The panel advised that Rule 1.5(e) governs, providing 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; (2) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers; and (3) the total fee is reasonable. The panel concluded that the fees should be divided according to quantum meruit, the fair value of services rendered before the former attorney's termination of representation. Both attorneys should try to reach an agreement on the reasonable value of services prior to the termination, and if that fails, a court may have to make the determination, citing Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-71.

In practice

Under this opinion, the fact that the former attorney, rather than the client, ended the representation does not itself resolve whether the lien is paid. The opinion applies Rule 1.5(e) and measures the former attorney's entitlement by quantum meruit for pre-termination work, directing the attorneys to try to agree on that value and leaving the determination to a court if they cannot.

Common questions

Q: Does the former attorney lose the fee by being the one who terminated the representation?

A: Per the opinion, the fees are divided by quantum meruit for the fair value of services rendered before the former attorney's termination; the opinion does not treat the termination as forfeiting that value.

Q: How is the former attorney's share measured?

A: Per the opinion, according to quantum meruit, the fair value of services rendered before the termination of representation.

Q: What if the two attorneys cannot agree on the value?

A: Per the opinion, a court may have to make the determination.

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 setting the conditions for a fee division between lawyers not in the same firm and resolved the former attorney's entitlement by quantum meruit for pre-termination work, with judicial determination as the fallback.

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 (quantum meruit for a prior attorney's services).

See also

• RI EAP Op. 92-52: A Prior Attorney's Disputed Fee Lien
• RI EAP Op. 92-58: Paying a Suspended Attorney a Fee

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992 (Opinion 92-61), 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%2092-61.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion 92-61, Request #287
Issued July 23, 1992

An attorney seeks Panel advice with regard to a division of fees with another attorney. The attorney represents a client who was previously represented by another attorney. The former attorney asserted a lien on the client's file for services rendered. The client objects to the lien because it was the former attorney who terminated the attorney-client relationship, and not the client. The inquiring attorney asks whether the former attorney's lien should be paid in light of the fact that it was the former attorney who terminated the representation.

The Panel advises that Rule 1.5(e) governs this inquiry. The Rule 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.

The fees should be divided according to quantum meruit; the fair value of services rendered before the former attorney's termination of representation. Both attorneys should try to reach an agreement on the reasonable value of services prior to the termination and if that fails, then a court may have to make the determination. See Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-71.