Levine v. Bayne, Snell & Krause, Ltd.

Conspicuously, the Court does not say that the contract in this case is ambiguous or contrary to any public policy. Yet the *101Court refuses to give effect to its plain language for this one reason: the contract is a contingent fee agreement between a lawyer and client. I disagree, and therefore dissent.

The Smiths sold the Levines their home, taking a promissory note that called for monthly payments and was secured by a deed of trust. When the Levines discovered problems with the home’s foundation, they retained the law firm of Bayne, Snell & Krause to sue the Smiths for fading to disclose the…