Court DecisionDefendant New Jersey Attorney Cige in the case of Balducci v Cige had plaintiff Balducci sign a fee agreement that allowed Attorney Cige to collect the greater of his hourly rate plus expenses or a portion of the settlement in the underlying discrimination case.  The Trial Court felt that Attorney Cige did not adequately explain the fee agreement, nor that other attorneys may take this case on a pure contingency basis without Plaintiff Baducci having to risk paying Attorney Cige’s attorney fee billings plus expenses if the case were not successful or did not recover enough to cover the accrued legal fees plus expenses.

The Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision:

The fee agreement in this case is ambiguous and to some extent illusory. Defendant failed to discharge his ethical obligation to explain the terms of the agreement, their implications, and alternatives to the agreement, so the client could make an informed decision regarding his representation. The trial court did not err by so finding. 

Because of this the Fee Agreement was considered invalid.  The court struck down the $280,000 of attorney’s fees plus expenses.

Share |


No Comments


Post a Comment
Name
Required
E-Mail
Required (Not Displayed)
Comment
Required


All comments are moderated and stripped of HTML.
Submission Validation
Required
CAPTCHA
Change the CAPTCHA codeSpeak the CAPTCHA code
 
Enter the Validation Code from above.
NOTICE: This blog and website are made available by the publisher for educational and informational purposes only. It is not be used as a substitute for competent insurance, legal, or tax advice from a licensed professional in your state. By using this blog site you understand that there is no broker client relationship between you and the blog and website publisher.
Blog Archive
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2013
  • 2011


View Mobile Version