- 9 -
The Contingency Fee
Although petitioner was represented at trial by the law firm
of Branton & Hall, petitioner was initially represented in his
suit by "Racehorse" Haynes and his law firm (the Haynes Firm).
Petitioner's payment agreement with the Haynes firm was a
straight fee arrangement. However, due to difficulties
associated with the dissolution of the Haynes firm, petitioner's
case languished. By the time petitioner hired Branton & Hall on
May 30, 1989, he could not afford to pay the attorneys by the
hour; therefore, he agreed to a contingency fee arrangement.
The payment arrangement was characterized by Jim Branton
(Branton) as a "standard contingent fee arrangement". In
addition to providing that all expenses necessary to prepare the
case for settlement or trial, as well as expenses for trying the
case, were to be paid by the client, the fee contract provided in
relevant part that
the undersigned, hereinafter called CLIENTS, employ the
law firm of BRANTON & HALL, P.C., hereinafter called
ATTORNEYS, understanding that the legal services
rendered and to be rendered will be by ATTORNEYS of the
professional corporation at its discretion. CLIENTS
hereby sell, convey, and assign to BRANTON & HALL,
P.C., as consideration for said services a forty
percent (40%) interest in and to any and all causes of
action, claims, demands, judgment or recoveries which
4(...continued)
motion seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no liability
for insurance coverage for any loss or damages arising out of the
judgment obtained against Harte-Hanks by petitioner.
Federal's motion was granted, and a judgment was entered on
Apr. 24, 1992, and subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit. Federal Ins. Co. v. Srivastava, 2 F.3d 98
(5th Cir. 1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011