Eisenberg v. Brand

The action is one for personal injury. After some association with plaintiff in this action, counsel represented her in *879the Surrogate’s Court. He became dissatisfied with her as a client, and repeatedly urged her to engage another lawyer to prosecute this action. On May 2, 1932, he sent her a letter which in part stated: “ Unless you authorize me to turn this case over to some other lawyer, I am considering that this case is closed.” Counsel had done considerable work and made disbursements. Ordinarily, he should be paid like any other workman for the services he rendered. What is before me,…