Where the attorneys have otherwise agreed, their agreement governs the division of fees unless there was a breach of that agreement due to a party's failure to fulfill his obligations in representing the client. See Brown v. Seimers, 98-694 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/13/99), 726 So.2d 1018, 1022-23, writ denied, 99-0430 (La. 4/1/99), 742 So.2d 556; Rice, Steinberg, Stutin, P.A., 716 So.2d at 14. See Duer Taylor v. Blanchard, Walker, O'Quin Roberts, 354 So.2d 192, 194-95 (La. 1978).
On appellate review, the court's function is to determine whether the findings of the trier of fact were clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Matta v. Snow, 01-760, p. 7 (La.App. 5th Cir.1/15/02),807 So.2d 934, 938; Brown v. Seimers, 98-694, p. 6 (La.App. 5th Cir.1/13/99), 726 So.2d 1018, 1021, writ denied, 99-0430 (La. 4/1/99), 742 So.2d 556; Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). Where there is a conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Matta, 01-760 at p. 7, 807 So.2d at 938; Brown, 98-694 at p. 6, 726 So.2d 1018 at 1021; Rosell, 549 So.2d at 844.
Foster v. DestinTrading Corp., on rehearing, 96-0803 (La. 10/21/97), 700 So.2d 199, 202. Where there is a conflict in the testimony. reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Brown v. Seimers, 98-694 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/13/99), 726 So.2d 1018, 1021, writ denied, 99-0430 (La. 4/1/99), 742 So.2d 556; Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844-45 (La. 1989). The issue to be resolved by the reviewing court is not whether the factfinder was right or wrong, but whether his conclusion was a reasonable one. Brown v. Seimers, 726 So.2d at 1021;Stobart v. State. Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993).
However, the courts have declined to apply the joint venture theory to support an equal division of the fee when the attorneys have not been jointly involved in the representation of the client. See Brown v. Seimers, 98-694 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/13/99), 726 So.2d 1018, 1022, writ denied, 99-0430 (La. 4/1/99), 742 So.2d 556; see also Matter of P E Boat Rentals, Inc. v. Martzell, Thomas Bickford, 928 F.2d 662, 665 (5th Cir. 1991). Rather, the apportionment of the fee in those types of cases has been based on quantum meruit.
On appellate review, the court's function is to determine whether the findings of the trier of fact were clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Brown v. Seimers, 98-694, p. 6 (La.App. 5th Cir.1/13/99), 726 So.2d 1018, 1021, writ denied, 99-0430 (La. 4/1/99), 742 So.2d 556; Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). Where there is a conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.
On appellate review, the court's function is to determine whether the findings of the trier of fact were clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Matta v.Snow, 01-760, p. 7 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/15/02), 807 So.2d 934, 938; Brown v. Seimers, 98-694, p. 6 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/13/99), 726 So.2d 1018, 1021, writ denied, 99-0430 (La. 4/1/99), 742 So.2d 556; Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). Where there is a conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.
Therefore, "in the absence of joint representation and a written agreement with the client, if an oral agreement to divide a fee existed in this case, the fee could be divided only on a quantum meruit basis." Dukes, p. 6, 878 So.2d at 521 (citing Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5(e)(1)); Brown v. Seimers, 98-694 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1/13/99), 726 So.2d 1018, 1022; and Matter of P E Boat Rentals, Inc., 928 F.2d 662, 665) (5th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added)). "[T]he courts have declined to apply the joint venture theory to support an equal division of the fee when the attorneys have not been jointly involved in the representation of the client."
The appropriate standard of review in a Jones Act and unseaworthiness claim is the manifest error or the clearly wrong standard. Foster v. Destin Trading Corp., on rehearing, 96-0803 (La.5/30/97), 700 So.2d 199, 202. Where there is a conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Brown v. Seimers, 98-694 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/13/99), 726 So.2d 1018, 1021, writ denied, 99-0430 (La.4/1/99), 742 So.2d 556; Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844-45 (La. 1989). The issue to be resolved by the reviewing court is not whether the factfinder was right or wrong, but whether his conclusion was a reasonable one. Brown v. Seimers, 726 So.2d at 1021; Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993).
Where there is a conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Brown v. Seimers, 98-694 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/13/99), 726 So.2d 1018, 1021; Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989); Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La. 1978);Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La. 1973). The issue to be resolved by the reviewing court is not whether the factfinder was right or wrong, but whether his conclusion was a reasonable one.Brown, 726 So.2d at 1021; Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993).
However, the courts have declined to apply the joint venture theory to support an equal division of the fee when the attorneys have not been jointly involved in the representation of the client. See Dukes v. Matheny, 20002–0652, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/23/04), 878 So.2d 517, 520,citing Brown v. Seimers, 98–694 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/13/99), 726 So.2d 1018, 1022,writ denied,99–0430 (La.4/1/99), 742 So.2d 566 and Matter of P & E Boat Rentals, Inc., 928 F.2d 662, 665 5th Cir.1991). Rather, the apportionment of the fee in those types of cases has been based on quantum meruit.