Skeens v. Miller
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1DissentEldridge, Judge
The majority in this case adopts the so-called “New York rule” as to when an attorney may sue for the value of services rendered prior to a client’s termination of a contingent fee agreement, holding that the attorney may recover as soon as the contingency contract is terminated. This decision is contrary to established Maryland agency law and to sound public policy.
The basis of the New York rule is that “a client cannot make the attorney’s recovery dependent upon a contract term when the client has terminated the contract.” 331 Md. 331, 339, 628 A.2d 185, 189 (1993); citing Tillman v. Komar,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Matter of TillmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Sharrow v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- Keener v. HarrodCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1852
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. KorotkiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Vogelhut v. KandelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.