Attorney discharged for cause was entitled to quantum meruit compensation for services rendered before discharge

Law Reporter, May 1999

Somuah v. Flachs, 721 A.2d 680 (Md. 1998).

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that an attorney discharged for good cause was entitled to recover the reasonable value of services rendered before the discharge.

Here, Somuah hired Flachs to represent her in a personal injury claim. Somuah later discharged Flachs after he informed her that he was not licensed to practice in Maryland. Somuah refused Flachs's request for payment for the time spent and expenses incurred investigating her claim.

Flachs sued Somuah, seeking to recover the reasonable value of services rendered and expenses paid during his representation of defendant. The jury awarded about $19,900. An appellate court affirmed, holding that plaintiff's failure to inform defendant that he was not licensed in Maryland did not constitute good cause to discharge plaintiff so as to preclude his right to immediate compensation for the reasonable value of services rendered before the discharge.

Reversing, the state high court noted that a client's right to terminate an attorney-client relationship is not as limited as the appellate court concluded. Rather, a client has cause to discharge his or her attorney when the client has any good faith basis for being dissatisfied with the attorney. An attorney who has performed competently is entitled to compensation based on the reasonable value of services rendered before discharge, the court found.

Here, the court said, when defendant retained plaintiff, she rightfully expected that he could handle any court proceedings. Thus, when plaintiff eventually disclosed his inability to represent defendant in Maryland without bringing in local counsel, defendant had a good faith basis for being dissatisfied with plaintiff's representation.

Turning to whether plaintiff was entitled to compensation, the court found that plaintiff had not engaged in any serious misconduct that justifies forfeiture of compensation. Instead, plaintiff performed competently before his discharge. Failing to compensate plaintiff under the circumstances would be unfair, the court reasoned, because defendant had accepted some of the benefits of plaintiff's services and would be unjustly enriched if compensation were denied. Therefore, plaintiff was entitled to compensation based on the reasonable value of services rendered before the discharge.

Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings conditioned upon defendant's recovery in her personal injury action.