- 4 -
petitioner’s gross recovery. They were to receive one-third in
the event that an agreement was reached before trial. If a trial
commenced, the fee increased to 40 percent. Settlement offers
had to be discussed with petitioner, and an offer could not be
accepted or rejected without his approval. Merten & Associates
had an attorney’s statutory lien and a possessory lien on
petitioner’s property in its possession.
Additionally, Fee Agreement I provided that if petitioner
(1) breached the agreement, (2) did not cooperate, (3)
unreasonably rejected a settlement offer, or (4) insisted on
pursuing a claim contrary to the attorney’s advice, the law firm
could terminate its services and would be entitled to payment at
an hourly rate for services rendered to date, plus costs.
Petitioner could fire Merten & Associates, at any time, which
would entitle it to a minimum payment of an hourly rate for their
services. Fee Agreement I did not provide legal fees for the
pursuit or defense of an appeal.
Having hired attorneys, petitioner filed a complaint in the
Multnomah County Circuit Court for the State of Oregon on
December 12, 1989. Altogether, petitioner filed four amended
complaints, the last of which was filed on March 11, 1991.
Petitioner’s complaints, as amended, contained two claims
for relief. The first was against MBL for intentional
interference with contract and economic expectations. The second
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011