Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC v. Cole

Supreme Court of Louisiana
929 So. 2d 1224 (2006)


Facts

Connie Cole (plaintiff) hired attorney Bobby Culpepper of the firm Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC (firm) (defendant) to represent him in a matter contesting Cole’s mother’s will. Cole asked Culpepper to handle the matter on a contingency-fee basis of one-third of any award. Culpepper sent Cole a letter to confirm that he would accept a contingent fee of one-third “of whatever additional property or money we can get for you.” During negotiations, Cole was offered property worth $21,600.03 more than what he would have received under his mother’s will. Culpepper recommended that Cole accept the offer. Cole believed he was entitled to a larger share of his mother’s estate, and he rejected the offer. Culpepper then refused to file a lawsuit, and Cole terminated Culpepper as his attorney. Cole, representing himself, brought an action challenging his mother’s will. Cole lost, and he recovered nothing. Culpepper filed a petition on behalf of the firm seeking $6,950.01, which represented one-third of the offer, less costs Cole previously paid. Cole denied that he owed Culpepper any money, arguing that Culpepper took the matter on a contingency-fee basis and then quit. The matter went to trial, and the court found in favor of the firm. The court found that there was a contingency-fee arrangement and that Culpepper had performed work that entitled Culpepper to the contingency fee. Cole appealed the trial court’s judgment. The appeals court affirmed the trial court, finding that a valid contingent-fee contract existed and that Cole deprived Culpepper of his contingent fee when he did not sign the offer that Culpepper negotiated. Cole applied for a writ of certiorari from the state supreme court, and the state supreme court granted the writ to review the case.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Per Curiam)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.