Padden Law Firm, PLLC v. Trice, No. 18-2451 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to alter the distribution of attorney's fees set forth in a contingency fee sharing agreement between two law firms in a products liability case. The court noted that it is unusual for the courts to revise fee-sharing agreements between lawyers, negotiated at arm's length, based upon the perceived fairness of the agreements. However, the court explained that this was not a typical personal injury litigation matter, which the district court presided over for more than seven years.
Reviewing the matter in light of the construct of the Minnesota Code of Professional Conduct, the court found that the district court correctly analyzed the proportionality prong of Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) and did not abuse its discretion in altering the fee agreement and awarding the Padden Firm 15% of the disputed fee. The court also held that the district court did not err in finding that the Padden Firm did not take financial and ethical responsibility for the case within the meaning of Rule 1.5(e).
Court Description: [Beam, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Attorneys' Fees. For the court's opinion in the underlying products liability action, see Adams v. Toyota Motor Corp., 867 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2017). For a related case, see Napoli Shkolnic PLLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 18-2172, 2020 WL 1814269 (8th Cir. Apr. 10, 2020). District court order allocating contingency fees between two law firms affirmed; while it is unusual for courts to revise fee-sharing agreements between lawyers, negotiated at arm's length, based on the perceived fairness of the agreements, this was not a typical personal injury matter; reviewing the matter in the construct of the Minnesota Code of Professional Conduct, the court finds the district court properly analyzed the proportionality prong of Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) and did not abuse its discretion in altering the fee agreement and awarding the Padden firm a reduced amount of the contingency fees; nor did the district court err in finding Padden did not take financial and ethical responsibility for the case within the meaning of Minn. R. Prof'l Conduct1.5(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.