Judge v. Parker McCay
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
500 F. Supp. 2d 521 (2007)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Glenn Judge (plaintiff) was an insurance adjuster and a lawyer but was not an active member of any state’s bar. Judge worked regularly on insurance-defense cases with law firm Parker McCay, P.A. (Parker) (defendant). Judge’s neighbor Timothy Carroll was injured in a construction-site accident and inquired whether Parker would be interested in representing Carroll and his wife. Parker faxed Judge a retainer agreement that Carroll signed in the hospital and his wife signed later. Judge did not tell the Carrolls he would be receiving a referral fee from Parker, and the Carrolls did not consent to a referral-fee agreement. Parker filed an action on behalf of the Carrolls and obtained a verdict of nearly $1.9 million. After the verdict, Judge called the Carrolls and, for the first time, asked about receiving a fee. Parker received legal fees for the civil suit and for Carroll’s workers’-compensation claim. Parker refused Judge’s demand for a referral fee. Judge sued Parker for breach of contract, claiming that Parker had orally agreed to pay him a referral fee of one-third of the fee Parker received in the civil suit and one-fifth of Parker’s fee in connection with the workers’-compensation claim. Judge and Parker cross-moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dalzell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.