Legal Opinion

Mullens v. Hansel-Henderson

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 13, 2003No. 01SC622PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Martinez

I. Introduction

We granted certiorari to decide whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an attorney must return fees received for legal services when the services were successfully completed but the agreement was not in writing. The court of appeals ordered attorney Steven Mullens to return fees earned during representation of Victoria Hansel-Henderson in claims against her former employer because the underlying contingent fee agreement did not comply with the requirements of Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Chapter 23.3, and was therefore unenforceable. We hold that an attorney is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dudding v. Norton Frickey & AssociatesSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
  2. Elliott v. JoyceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
  3. Beeson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the StateColorado Court of Appeals · 1997

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Berra v. SPRINGER AND STEINBERG, PCColorado Court of Appeals · 2010
  2. Melat, Pressman & Higbie, L.L.P. v. Hannon Law Firm, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2012
  3. Hotel Associates, Inc. v. Rieves, Rubens & MaytonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2014
  4. In the Matter of GilbertSupreme Court of Colorado · 2015
  5. LaFond v. SweeneyColorado Court of Appeals · 2012

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API