- 66 -
The Wisconsin courts have also recognized that although a
client may have the ultimate power to discharge an attorney or
settle a claim, the attorney has rights and remedies when the
client breaches or terminates a contingent fee agreement. For
example, in Tonn v. Reuter, 95 N.W.2d 261 (Wis. 1959), the
Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an attorney who had been
discharged without cause could sue his client for breach of
contract; the measure of damages was the contingent fee
percentage applied to the client’s ultimate recovery, less the
value of the services the attorney was not required to perform as
a result of the breach. And in Goldman v. Home Mut. Ins. Co.,
supra, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a plaintiff’s
attorney could sue the defendant for third-party interference
with contract rights, where the defendant settled with the
plaintiff, without the knowledge of the attorney.40
ii. Broader Ground--Federal Standard
I now turn to the broader ground of the decision of the
Court of Appeals in Cotnam v. Commissioner, supra, as announced
by Judges Rives and Brown, and as opposed by Judge Wisdom, and
40 If, on appeal of the case at hand to the Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, the Court of Appeals should wish to
obtain answers to any questions of Wisconsin law that the parties
have not resolved to its satisfaction, and which it regards as
bearing on the outcome, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has power
(not obligation) to entertain any such questions put to it by the
Court of Appeals under Wis. Stat. sec. 821.01 (1999) (Uniform
Certification of Questions of Law Rule).
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011