Opinion
10-869
Opinion Delivered May 26, 2011
Appeal from the Lonoke County Circuit Court, No. CV2006-522, Hon. Phillip T. Whiteaker, Judge, Reversed and Remanded.
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 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 quantummeruit. 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] quantummeruit." 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Ark. 590, 592, 839 S.W.2d 192, 193 (1992) (citing Henry, Walden Davis v. Goodman, 294 Ark. 25, 741 S.W.2d 233 (1987), superseded in part by statute, Act of March 2, 1989, No. 293, § 1, 1989 Ark.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, quantummeruit, 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 quantummeruit claim against EHC.
Reversed and remanded.