Emery Hughes Corp. v. Audrianna Grisham, P.A.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 230
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
10-869
Opinion Delivered May
EMERY HUGHES CORPORATION
APPELLANT
VS.
26, 2011
APPEAL FROM TH E LO NOKE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CV2006-522,
HON. PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER,
JUDGE,
AUDRIANNA GRISHAM, P.A.
APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice
This case involves the common-law remedy available to a law firm suing a former
client to enforce a contingent-fee agreement. Appellant Emery Hughes Corporation (“EHC”)
appeals three orders of the Lonoke County Circuit Court: (1) a judgment of $108,865.75
entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of appellee Audrianna Grisham, P.A. (“AGPA”)
on its claim for breach of contract; (2) the denial of EHC’s motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for new trial; and (3) the award of
prejudgment interest of $24,196.40, attorneys’ fees of $36,000, and costs of $10,299.75.
Because the circuit court erred in submitting to the jury AGPA’s claim for damages under a
breach-of-contract theory of recovery, we reverse and remand.
By way of explanation, we begin by noting that two remedies are available to
discharged attorneys who bring suit under the attorney-lien statute, Arkansas Code Annotated
Cite as 2011 Ark. 230
section 16-22-304 (Supp. 2009). Pursuant to the statute, an attorney discharged without cause
may recover the full amount of the contracted fee, while an attorney discharged with cause
is limited to a reasonable fee for services rendered prior to discharge under the theory of
quantum meruit. Salmon v. Atkinson, 355 Ark. 325, 331 n.1, 137 S.W.3d 383, 386 n.1 (2003).
In contrast, “the only common law remedy available to attorneys suing on their contingent
fee contracts [is] quantum meruit.” Lancaster v. Fitzhugh, 310 Ark. 590, 592, 839 S.W.2d 192,
193 (1992) (citing Henry, Walden & Davis v. Goodman, 294 Ark. 25, 741 S.W.2d 233 (1987),
superseded in part by statute, Act of March 2, 1989, No. 293, § 1, 1989 Ark. Acts 606, 607).
In the instant case, AGPA did not bring suit against EHC under the attorney-lien
statute. Rather, AGPA sought damages for termination of the parties’ agreement based on
three alternative theories of recovery: breach of contract, quantum meruit, and promissory
estoppel. We reiterate our holding in Lancaster that the only common-law remedy available
to AGPA is a reasonable fee for its services under the theory of quantum meruit. Accordingly,
we agree with AGPA’s contention on cross-appeal that, upon remand, it may pursue a
quantum meruit claim against EHC.
Reversed and remanded.
2
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.
