Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Levine v. Bayne, Snell & Krause, Ltd.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided April 5, 2001No. 99-0981Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Owen

I concur in the judgment in this case, but the Court’s opinion is overly broad. The term “any amount received” is unambiguous and connotes a dollar amount received by the client rather than a non-cash recovery. But not all counterclaims or setoffs should diminish an attorney’s contingent fee that is based on a percentage of “any amount received.” In some situations, an attorney should be able to assert a claim against a client for misrepresentation or breach of an express or implied contractual covenant and thereby recover a fee based on the amount awarded for the client’s affirmative claims…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lopez v. Muñoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P.Texas Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Benchmark Bank v. CrowderTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  3. López v. Muoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1998

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

Powered by the Exa API