From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...
In re Fee
Arizona Supreme Court
898 P.2d 975 (1995)
Attorneys Robert Fee and John Montijo (F&M) (defendants) were retained to file a medical-malpractice action on behalf of a client whose son was born with brain damage. F&M were to receive a 40% contingent fee. The defense offered a settlement consisting of a cash amount followed by periodic payments and a separate amount for attorneys’ fees. F&M and their client decided the client’s needs would be greater than the amount offered. During a meeting with the settlement judge, there was a discussion about how the defense tactic of making separate offers of attorneys’ fees drove a wedge between a plaintiff’s attorney and his client. The settlement judge indicated he thought F&M’s contingent fee was excessive. F&M told the client the attorneys’-fees offer was insufficient. The client authorized F&M to seek more money for her son’s care, which might result in increased attorneys’ fees. A new defense offer was made that again included a separate amount for attorneys’ fees. In a private meeting, F&M proposed that the client pay them an additional amount from her share of the cash settlement. F&M advised the client of her right to seek independent advice. The client assured F&M she was satisfied with the arrangement. F&M advised the settlement judge that they agreed to the settlement but did not disclose the new fee arrangement. F&M did not want to upset the settlement, did not believe it was the settlement judge’s role to determine whether their fees were reasonable, and planned to reveal the separate agreement to the trial judge who would be approving the fees. After the settlement conference, the client called the settlement judge and asked whether she was required to comply with the separate agreement. The judge removed F&M from the case and initiated disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary commission recommended that F&M be suspended for 60 days. F&M appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Zlaket, J.)
Dissent (Corcoran, J.)
What to do next…
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 551,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.