MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
ETHICS DOCKET NO. 1990-15
Entitlement to fee after discharge in personal injury case
In your letter you have advised that in November of 1988 your office was retained to handle a plaintiff's claim for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Pursuant to a retainer agreement you pursued the representation, including the issuance of letters of representation to the carriers involved, assembling the data required to pursue the claim, negotiations with the responsible party's adjuster and preparation of a Bill of Complaint. After your client cancelled or failed to show for several scheduled conferences, you received a letter in September of 1989 terminating your employment. You then advised the client that either he or a new attorney of his choice could pick up his file after you were paid for expenses incurred and $950.00 "for quantum merit". The client subsequently responded with payment of your expenses, but inquired as to why you were entitled to the payment of a fee.
You have now requested that this Committee provide you with "an opinion regarding the payment of quantum merit services to an attorney after he (she) has been discharged as the attorney".
Subparagraph (d) of Rule 1.16 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct provides that, "upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practical to protect a client's interests", including "surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled". ,But it further provides that, "the lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law". Your inquiry, therefore, poses a question of law not one of ethics; and, the Committee on Ethics does not give opinions on questions of law.
For your assistance, we would refer you to the following:
1. As to your right to be paid for services under the circumstances of your case, see Palmer v Brown, 184 Md 309 and Boyd v Johnson, 145 Md 385.
2. As to your right to assert a retaining lien, see Ashman v Schecter, 196 Md 168 and Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v Mclntire, 286 Md 87.
3. As to arrangements with an attorney succeeding to your client's file, see Vogeihut v Kandel 66 Md App. 170.