Legal Opinion
Dragelevich v. Kohn, Milstein, Cohen & Hausfeld
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided November 28, 1990No. 4:90CV0691PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ANN ALDRICH, District Judge.
J. Walter Dragelevich claims that he is entitled to 20% of the attorneys’ fees received by the law firm of Kohn, Milstein, Cohen & Hausfeld, pursuant to a fee-splitting agreement. Dragelevich brought this action against Kohn, Milstein and three members of the firm (collectively “Kohn, Milstein”). Kohn, Milstein responds that the agreement cannot be enforced because 20% of the fees far exceeds Dragelevich’s contribution to the underlying case. The Court concludes that Disciplinary Rule 2-107(A) precludes Dragelevich from claiming 20% of Kohn,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Weil v. NearySupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Duriak v. Globe American Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
- Tom E. MacUrdy v. Sikov & Love, P.A.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Post v. BregmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
- Norton Frickey, PC v. JAMES B. TURNER, PCColorado Court of Appeals · 2004
- Padden Law Firm, PLLC v. Bridgett TriceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2020
- Dickman v. Banner Life Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2023
- Norton Frickey, P.C. v. James B. Turner, P.C.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2004
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.