MATTER OF DE GRAFF, FOY, CONWAY & HOLT-HARRIS v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
When a lawyer informs a prospective client, at the time he is retained, that his fee will be on a contingent basis, he should clearly indicate the percentage of recovery to be received. However, the petitioner’s failure to specify the percentage in this case calls for neither a reversal nor even a remand for further findings.
The evidence strongly supports the conclusion of the courts below that the petitioner had made it clear, in the discussion with the client’s representative prior to retention, that its fee would be on a contingent basis. Mr. John DeGraff and his son, members of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rentways, Inc. v. O'Neill Milk & Cream Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1955
3Cited by10 opinions
- Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Brightstar Corp.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2019
- In re the Estate of LanyiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Goldstein v. 4000 East River Road AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Kirby v. LiskaNebraska Supreme Court · 1983
- Becker v. Huss Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.