Legal Opinion

Loffredo v. Holt

Utah Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 2001No. 20000170PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DURRANT, Justice:

€ 1 This case involves a dispute over attorney fees between Seott Holt and his former clients, Donald Westenskow and Bonnie Lof-fredo. The central question presented is whether rule 1.5(c) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct precludes the enforcement of an unsigned contingent fee agreement. The district court concluded that the agreement was unenforceable and granted Westenskow's summary judgment motion. On appeal, Holt contends that rule 1.5(c) does not establish the contractual elements required to form a valid contingent fee agreement. We decline to address this…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bradbury v. ValenciaUtah Supreme Court · 2000
  2. A.J. MacKay Co. v. Okland Construction Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Pate v. Marathon Steel Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1984
  4. ProMax Development Corp. v. RaileUtah Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Kennedy v. New Era Industries, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1979

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

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Miller v. WeaverUtah Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Miller v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Powell v. CannonUtah Supreme Court · 2008
  4. A.S. v. R.S.Utah Supreme Court · 2017
  5. Migliore v. Livingston Financial, LLCUtah Supreme Court · 2015

43 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