Legal Opinion

Holmes v. Loveless

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided July 12, 2004No. 52634-1-IPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.

The fee a lawyer collects for legal services must be reasonable. Attorney fee agreements are subject to continued review for reasonableness over the course of the agreement. We conclude that the trial court erred in enforcing a contingent fee agreement under which a law firm received five percent of the cash distributions from a joint venture in exchange for rendering legal services at a discount. That discount was valued at $8,000 off regular rates; the cash distributions over 30 years have exceeded $380,000. Further enforcement of this agreement cannot be justified on any principled basis.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Yakima County (West Valley) Fire Protection District No. 12 v. City of YakimaWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Eriks v. DenverWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Ski Acres, Inc. v. Kittitas CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Matter of SwartzArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Meissner v. Simpson Timber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1966

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Coppernoll v. ReedWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Coppernoll v. ReedWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Holmes v. LovelessCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  4. VALLEY/50TH AVE., LLC. v. StewartWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Rafel Law Group PLLC v. DefoorCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API