Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Kosin

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 9, 2011No. 10-518Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ROBERT L. BROWN,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

As recognized by the |19majority, the following factors should be considered for a quantum meruit fee award when the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee is not specifically fixed by contract: (1) the attorney’s judgment, learning, ability, skill, experience, professional standing, and advice; (2) the relationship between the parties; (3) the amount or importance of the subject matter of the case; (4) the nature, extent, and difficulty of services in research; (5) the preparation of pleadings; (6) the proceedings actually taken and the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Crockett & Brown, P.A. v. CoursonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
  2. Robinson v. ChampionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1972
  3. Mobley Law Firm, P.A. v. Lisle Law Firm, P.A.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API