From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salem Realty Co. v. Matera

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Oct 8, 1981
384 Mass. 803 (Mass. 1981)

Summary

recognizing that, after substantial performance, bad faith termination might permit attorney to recover under contingency fee contract

Summary of this case from Malonis v. Harrington

Opinion

October 8, 1981.

Thomas D. Burns ( James F. Kavanaugh, Jr., with him) for the defendant.

James T. Ronan for the plaintiff.


The plaintiff, Salem Realty Co. (Salem), brought a petition before a single justice of this court to discharge a contingent fee agreement between the defendant, Francis V. Matera, and itself. Mr. Matera is seeking recovery for legal services rendered to Salem as a result of certain takings of Salem's properties by eminent domain. After transfer of the case to the Superior Court and to a master, Mr. Matera recovered a judgment in the sum of $46,795.89, of which $9,295.89 was interest computed from March 24, 1976, the date of Mr. Matera's counterclaim. This judgment represents a recovery for the fair value of the services rendered by Mr. Matera.

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment, modifying it only to the extent of ordering the addition of a provision discharging the contingent fee agreement. 10 Mass. App. Ct. 571 (1980). We granted an application for further appellate review. We agree with the reasoning and the result reached by the Appeals Court and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court as modified by direction of the Appeals Court.

We shall not repeat the facts because of their generous exposition in the Appeals Court opinion. Mr. Matera asks us to adopt the rule that a lawyer who has been discharged without cause has an enforceable right under a contingent fee contract to recover on that contract on a showing of substantial performance. We accept Mr. Matera's concession that no Massachusetts case can be found to support this rule. He acknowledges the right of a client to discharge his attorney at any time. See Herbits v. Constitution Indem. Co., 279 Mass. 539, 542 (1932).

We do not formulate a rule today which would bar recovery on a contingent fee agreement in all cases by an attorney who has rendered substantial performance. That question must be left open because on this record we are not satisfied that Mr. Matera rendered substantial performance before the plaintiff terminated its contract without good cause but without bad faith. Factors which may be weighed on another day when we are called upon to espouse or to reject a rule permitting recovery on a contingent fee agreement (as contrasted with recovery in quantum meruit) after its unilateral termination are the bad faith of the party terminating it (cf. Fortune v. National Cash Register Co., 373 Mass. 96, 103-106 [1977]), the extent of the performance left incomplete, the cost to the client of legal services necessary to complete the work, the conduct of the attorney in performing the agreement, and the wording of the agreement. In setting forth these factors (and the list is not necessarily complete) we do not wish to be understood as adumbrating a new rule. However, if an appropriate case is presented to us for appellate review, we shall consider these factors in determining whether to permit recovery on the contract in contrast to the restitutional species of recovery in quantum meruit.

The judgment shall be modified so as to add thereto a provision that the contingent fee agreement is discharged. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. Costs shall not be taxed against either party.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Salem Realty Co. v. Matera

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Oct 8, 1981
384 Mass. 803 (Mass. 1981)

recognizing that, after substantial performance, bad faith termination might permit attorney to recover under contingency fee contract

Summary of this case from Malonis v. Harrington

recognizing that if attorney has substantially performed, bad faith termination might permit attorney to recover under contingent fee agreement

Summary of this case from Sunrise Equip. & Excavation v. Constr. Mgmt. & Builders

In Salem Realty Co. v. Matera, supra at 804, however, this court stated that it might permit an attorney to recover under a contingent fee contract on a showing of substantial performance, bad faith termination by the client, and other factors.

Summary of this case from Opert v. Mellios

In Matera, supra, the Supreme Judicial Court discussed various factors that a court may weigh to determine if an attorney may recover under a contingent fee contract after unilateral termination but when the attorney has substantially performed under the contract, including the client's bad faith in terminating the attorney.

Summary of this case from Sunrise Equip. & Excavation v. Constr. Mgmt. & Builders

In Salem Realty, the Supreme Judicial Court left open the possibility of an attorney recovering on a contingent fee agreement on the basis that he or she had rendered substantial performance.

Summary of this case from Griffith Assoc. v. Malouf, Inc., No
Case details for

Salem Realty Co. v. Matera

Case Details

Full title:SALEM REALTY Co. vs. FRANCIS V. MATERA

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Oct 8, 1981

Citations

384 Mass. 803 (Mass. 1981)
426 N.E.2d 1160

Citing Cases

Provanzano v. National Auto Credit, Inc.

Agency contends that the Agreement is either a specific retainer, or is sufficiently analogous to a…

Smith v. Binder

In the absence of such evidence, a motion to dismiss under Mass.R.Civ.P. 41 (b) (2), see note 2, supra, was…