Legal Opinion

In re Distribution of Attorney's Fees Between Stowman Law Firm, P.A.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 28, 2015No. A13-2225PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DIETZEN, Justice.

Appellant Stowman Law Firm, P.A. (Stowman), which represented a client pursuant to a contingent-fee agreement, voluntarily withdrew from the representation of the client when efforts to settle the case failed. The client retained substitute counsel who then successfully settled the case. Stowman brought an action to recover in quantum meruit the value of the services provided pi'ior to the 'withdrawal. Following a bench trial, the district court found that Stowman failed to establish good cause for withdrawal and, therefore, was not entitled to recover in quantum…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Certified Fire Protection, Inc. v. Precision Construction, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Matter of TillmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  3. Rice v. PerlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  4. Dudding v. Norton Frickey & AssociatesSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
  5. Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2014

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Michael John RIEHM, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0296570Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
  2. Faricy Law Firm, P.A. v. API, Inc. Asbestos Settlement TrustSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
  3. O'Brien & Wolf, LLP v. S. Cent. Minn. Elec. Workers' Family Health PlanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2018
  4. Padden Law Firm, PLLC v. Bridgett TriceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2020
  5. Napoli Shkolnik PLLC v. Bridgette TriceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2020

7 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