Haskins v. Bell

Disposition of this appeal is controlled by what was said and done in Robinson v. Hawes, 56 Mich 135, 139, 140, followed in Reeck v. Polk, 269 Mich 252, 257. Having declared it the duty of an attorney to pay over, to his client, any sum he has received for the client over and above the amount owed him by that client, the Court in Robinson went on to say:

“In a case where there is a disagreement between the attorney and client as to the amount due him for professional services, and the attorney retains in good faith what he believes to be justly his due, he would not be liable to the client in…