KATHLEEN ALDRICH V HENRY FORD HOSPITAL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
KATHLEEN ALDRICH and
CHRISTOPHER ALDRICH,
UNPUBLISHED
December 26, 2000
Plaintiffs,
v
No. 213252
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 95-512432-NH
HENRY FORD HOSPITAL, also
known as COTTAGE HOSPITAL,
Defendant,
and
FIEGER, FIEGER, & SCHWARTZ,
Appellant,
and
LAKIN, WORSHAM, & VICTOR, PC,
Appellee.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Saad and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The law firm of Feger, Fieger, & Schwartz (FF&S) appeals by leave granted from an
order awarding the law firm of Lakin, Worsham, & Victor (LW&V) $28,351 in attorney fees and
$500 in costs. FF&S also appeals the amount of the appeal bond set by the trial court. We
affirm.
Howard J. Victor, from LW&V, represented plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action.
Before trial, plaintiffs discharged Victor1 and retained Geoffrey Fieger, from FF&S, to represent
1
There was no indication that the discharge arose from any “disciplinable misconduct . . . or
conduct contrary to public policy” on the part of Victor. See Reynolds v Polen, 222 Mich App
20, 27; 564 NW2d 467 (1997).
-1-
them. Fieger subsequently settled the case for $180,000, of which $56,703 was designated as
attorney fees after the deduction of costs pursuant to a contingent fee agreement. The trial court
divided the attorney fees equally between LW&V and FF&S, awarding approximately $28,351 to
each.
FF&S contends that the trial court erred in awarding half of the attorney fees to LW&V.
This Court reviews an award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion. Cleary v The Turning
Point, 203 Mich App 208, 211; 512 NW2d 9 (1993). We find no abuse of discretion here.
“[A] successor attorney . . . will be compelled to recognize that his share of the client’s
recovery may be determined to a significant degree by the valuable work put into the case by the
attorney’s predecessor.” Reynolds v Polen, 222 Mich App 20, 23, n 3; 564 NW2d 467 (1997).
Moreover, “‘[a]n attorney on a contingent fee arrangement . . . who rightfully withdraws[] is
entitled to compensation for the reasonable value of his services based upon quantum meruit, and
not the contingent fee contract. ’” Id. at 24, quoting Ambrose v Detroit Edison Co, 65 Mich App
484, 491; 237 NW2d 520 (1975). Recovery is “based on quantum meruit rather than the amount
provided for in a contingent fee agreement because a client has an absolute right to discharge an
attorney and is therefore not liable under the contract for exercising that right.” Id. at 25.
In awarding fees, a court should consider the “nature of the services rendered by the
attorney before discharge and award attorney fees on a quantum meruit basis.” Id. at 27.
“[Q]uantum meruit is generally determined by simply multiplying the number of hours worked
by a reasonable hourly fee.” Id. at 28. The court should also consider the following factors:
(1) the professional standing and experience of the attorney; (2) the skill,
time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4)
the difficulty of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature and length
of the professional relationship with the client. [Morris v Detroit, 189 Mich App
271, 279; 472 NW2d 43 (1991); see also Reynolds, supra at 28-30.]
The court may also consider that the attorney originally agreed to render services on a
contingency basis and therefore incurred a certain degree of risk. Morris, supra at 279.
However, the court need not make specific findings on each factor that it considered. Michigan
Nat’l Bank v Metro Institutional Food Serv, Inc, 198 Mich App 236, 241; 497 NW2d 225 (1993).
In addition, this Court recognizes that the trial court is “in the best position to assess an
attorney’s contribution to a case because trial courts are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of
cases before them, the time and effort expended by the attorneys, and changes in the parties’
leverage resulting from changes in counsel.” Reynolds, supra at 30.
FF&S contends that Fieger’s professional standing and experience influenced the amount
of the ultimate settlement and the swift resolution of the case. However, Victor spent
approximately 176 hours working on plaintiffs’ case, conducting discovery, mediating the case,
and preparing the case for trial. The trial court concluded that but for Victor’s work on plaintiffs’
case, Fieger would have been unable to obtain the settlement. We find this reasoning persuasive.
Indeed, FF&S did not provide any examples of additional work that was done by FF&S
aside from Fieger simply informing defendant that he now represented plaintiffs. In contrast,
Victor worked on the case for over three years. Accordingly, the division of attorney fees was
-2-
reasonable, given the number of hours Victor invested in the case, the work he accomplished, the
leverage he gained, the risk he undertook, and the fact that his hourly fee was $250. The trial
court did not abuse its discretion.
FF&S additionally argues that the trial court erred in awarding $500 sanctions to LW&V
and in setting an unusually high appeal bond. We decline to reach these issues because appellant
failed to cite any authority in support of them. “A party may not leave it to this Court to search
for authority to support its position.” McPeak v McPeak (On Remand), 233 Mich App 483, 496;
593 NW2d 180 (1999).2
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
2
Moreover, we note that the trial court’s reasoning for awarding the $500 in sanctions is unclear
from the record. Contrary to FF&S’s argument, it appears that the trial court did not award
sanctions because of FF&S’s objection to a proposed order but rather for FF&S’s failure to
inform LW&V that FF&S would not be able to attend a scheduled court hearing. We further
note that the issue regarding the appeal bond was rendered moot when FF&S posted the amount
set by the trial court.
-3-
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.
