Consolver v. Hotze
Supreme Court of Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 110,483 MAHNAZ CONSOLVER, Appellant, v. CHRIS HOTZE, Defendant, and (BRADLEY A. PISTOTNIK and the AFFILIATED ATTORNEYS OF PISTOTNIK LAW OFFICES, P.A.), Appellees. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. An attorney employed under a contingency fee contract who is discharged without cause is limited to a quantum meruit recovery for the reasonable value of the services rendered. 2. All the factors identified in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 7-121b(a) and Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 292)—including whether the fee agreement is fixed or…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Kroshnyi v. U.S. Pack Courier Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- Haz-Mat Response, Inc. v. Certified Waste Services Ltd.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1996
- SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN v. OliverSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
- Wiles v. American Family Life Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2015
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.