Davidson v. Broadhead

| iWOODARD, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the majority that the contingency fee which Davidson charged Mission was reasonable, for the following reasons:

It is unnecessary to decide whether there was a valid contingency fee contract in the case sub judice. In a similar case, Pharis & Pharis v. Rayner, 397 So.2d 1295 (La.1981), the plaintiff law firm sought to recover under a contingency fee contract for services rendered in protecting the defendant’s interest in the community regime formerly existing between herself and her deceased husband.

*485The trial court and the Third Circuit…