ASG Law

Tag: Legal Fees

  • Quantum Meruit: Determining Fair Legal Fees When a Contract is Unclear

    The Supreme Court ruled that when a court order doesn’t specify the exact amount of legal fees owed to a lawyer, the trial court has the authority to determine a reasonable amount based on the principle of quantum meruit. This means the lawyer should be paid fairly for the services they actually provided. This decision clarifies how legal fees can be determined even when initial agreements are unclear, ensuring lawyers are justly compensated for their work while protecting clients from excessive charges.

    Fair Compensation: How Much Should a Lawyer Receive When a Contract is Vague?

    This case revolves around a dispute between Atty. Winston C. Racoma and the Camarines Norte Water District (CNWD) regarding unpaid legal fees. CNWD had hired Atty. Racoma to prevent the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) from taking over its operations due to alleged loan defaults. After Atty. Racoma secured a temporary restraining order for CNWD, the relationship soured, and he was eventually discharged as counsel. The trial court ordered CNWD to pay Atty. Racoma’s legal fees based on quantum meruit, but the exact amount was not specified. The Court of Appeals later nullified the order, deeming it too vague. This prompted Atty. Racoma to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court, questioning whether the lower courts erred in determining the appropriate compensation for his services.

    The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court’s order to pay legal fees based on quantum meruit, without stating a specific amount, was enforceable. Petitioner Racoma argued that the order sufficiently established his entitlement to legal fees and provided a basis for calculating the amount due, referencing the original contract for legal services. He emphasized the court’s power to clarify its processes and ensure fair compensation for his services. The Supreme Court agreed with Atty. Racoma, clarifying the parameters for determining the precise amount of legal fees.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court has the authority to clarify any ambiguities or omissions in its orders, even after the judgment has become final. Citing Locsin v. Paredes, the Court stated that a trial judge can address omissions and provide specifics that can be determined from the complaint, evidence, and legal conclusions. In this case, the dispositive portion of the Resolution-Order contained a standard to determine petitioner’s legal fees. The failure to specify the collectible amount was a mere omission the court could correct with a supplemental or amended order.

    Referencing Seavan Carrier, Inc. v. GTI Sportswear Corp., the Court reinforced the principle that when a judgment fails to state the actual amount to be satisfied, the trial court, in its supervisory role over the execution of the judgment, should conduct a hearing to determine the precise amount recoverable. This is to ensure full satisfaction of the judgment. The Court stated there was no reason to abandon this ruling and deprive the petitioner of the fruits of his labor and the means to maintain his profession. The trial court only needed to compute the amount using the guidelines in the Resolution-Order itself.

    The Court then addressed the trial court’s computation of legal fees, which had arrived at a figure of P250,000.00. The trial court based this amount on paragraph IV of the contract, allocating specific amounts for various services rendered. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that the last pleading filed was the compliance manifestation, assumed that the trial court had considered all relevant circumstances in determining that the memorandum was the last pleading filed. The Court also referenced Sec. 24, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, highlighting the trial court’s broad discretion to determine reasonable legal fees. However, the Supreme Court also corrected the trial court’s assessment, reducing the award of P80,000.00 for the application for preliminary injunction by fifty percent (50%) because no preliminary injunction was ultimately issued.

    The Supreme Court adjusted the final amount due to Atty. Racoma, recalculating the fees based on the services rendered and payments already received. The final computation included P30,000.00 for signing the contract, P40,000.00 for filing the case, P100,000.00 for filing memoranda, and P40,000.00 for the application for preliminary injunction, less the P35,000.00 previously paid. This resulted in a collectible amount of P175,000.00. The Court deemed this amount a reasonable compensation for Atty. Racoma’s legal services on behalf of CNWD.

    FAQs

    What is “quantum meruit”? Quantum meruit is a legal doctrine that allows a party to recover the reasonable value of services rendered, even if there’s no explicit contract or if the contract is unclear. It ensures fair compensation based on the actual work done.
    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a trial court’s order to pay legal fees based on quantum meruit, without specifying an exact amount, was enforceable. The Supreme Court clarified that the trial court could determine a reasonable amount based on the services provided.
    Why was the initial court order challenged? The initial court order was challenged because it didn’t state the specific amount of legal fees to be paid to the lawyer. This lack of specificity led the Court of Appeals to nullify the order for being too vague.
    How did the Supreme Court resolve the issue? The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had the authority to clarify the order and determine a reasonable amount based on the lawyer’s services and the existing contract. The Court emphasized that the trial court could conduct a hearing to determine the exact amount due.
    What factors did the Supreme Court consider in determining the legal fees? The Supreme Court considered the original contract for legal services, the actual services rendered by the lawyer, and payments already made. It also adjusted the amount based on the outcome of certain services, such as the application for a preliminary injunction.
    What is the significance of Locsin v. Paredes in this case? Locsin v. Paredes established the principle that a trial judge can clarify omissions and set forth specific details based on the complaint, evidence, and legal conclusions. This principle allowed the Supreme Court to support the trial court’s authority to determine the exact amount of legal fees.
    What was the final amount awarded to the lawyer? After recalculating the fees based on services rendered and payments received, the Supreme Court reduced the original amount and awarded Atty. Racoma P175,000.00 as reasonable compensation.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling? This ruling clarifies that even when a court order doesn’t specify the exact amount of legal fees, the trial court has the power to determine a fair amount based on quantum meruit. This ensures lawyers are justly compensated for their work.

    This case provides a valuable lesson on the importance of clear and specific contracts, especially in legal services. It underscores the court’s role in ensuring fairness and reasonableness in determining compensation, even when contracts are unclear or incomplete. By applying the principle of quantum meruit, the Supreme Court balanced the interests of both the lawyer and the client, promoting justice and equity in the legal profession.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Atty. Winston C. Racoma v. Camarines Norte Water District, G.R. No. 144237, October 26, 2001

  • Attorney’s Lien in the Philippines: Can it Attach to Real Property?

    Attorney’s Lien Cannot Extend to Land: Protecting Real Property from Fee Disputes

    TLDR: This case clarifies that an attorney’s lien in the Philippines does not extend to land that is the subject of litigation. This means lawyers generally cannot place a lien on a client’s real property to secure payment of their fees. This ruling protects landowners from potential complications arising from attorney fee disputes and ensures a clearer process for attorneys to collect their dues.

    G.R. No. 120634, December 03, 1999

    Introduction

    Imagine inheriting a piece of land, only to find out later that your lawyer has placed a lien on it due to a dispute over attorney’s fees. This scenario highlights the importance of understanding the limits of an attorney’s lien in the Philippines, particularly concerning real property. The case of Flora Doronila-Tioseco, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. delves into whether an attorney’s lien can extend to land, providing crucial guidance for both lawyers and landowners.

    This case revolves around a dispute between the heirs of the late Alfonso Doronila and their counsel, Ramon Gonzales, regarding attorney’s fees. The central legal question is whether a court can validly order the annotation of an attorney’s lien on the title of land belonging to the estate, especially after the main case has been appealed.

    Legal Context

    An attorney’s lien is a legal right that allows a lawyer to hold a client’s property as security for unpaid fees. This lien can be either charging or retaining.

    • Charging Lien: This type of lien attaches to the judgment or proceeds of a lawsuit that the attorney helped secure for the client.
    • Retaining Lien: This allows the attorney to retain possession of the client’s documents, papers, and other properties until the fees are paid.

    However, the scope of an attorney’s lien is not unlimited. The Rules of Court and established jurisprudence define its boundaries. Specifically, the Supreme Court has consistently held that an attorney’s lien does not automatically extend to real property involved in the litigation.

    The relevant provision of the Rules of Court does not explicitly mention real property. The Supreme Court relies on case law to interpret the scope of the lien. The court has stated that “a lawyer is entitled only to a charging lien. He has no retaining lien over the judgment secured by him for his client.”

    Case Breakdown

    The story begins with a disagreement over attorney’s fees between the Doronila heirs and their lawyer, Ramon Gonzales. After the death of Alfonso Doronila, his heirs engaged Gonzales’ services. A dispute arose regarding the amount of fees owed, leading to legal battles.

    Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

    1. Initial Dispute: The heirs filed a motion to cancel the attorney’s lien claimed by Gonzales.
    2. Trial Court Ruling: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion and awarded Gonzales 10% of the heirs’ shares in the estate.
    3. Appeals: Both the heirs and Gonzales appealed the RTC’s decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).
    4. Motion to Annotate Lien: While the appeals were pending, Gonzales filed a motion to annotate his attorney’s lien on the titles of the estate’s land.
    5. RTC Grants Annotation: Despite the pending appeals, the RTC granted Gonzales’ motion.
    6. CA Affirms: The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC’s decision.

    The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the lower courts’ rulings. The Court emphasized two critical points:

    1. Loss of Jurisdiction: Once the appeals were perfected, the RTC lost jurisdiction over the case and could not act on the motion to annotate the lien.
    2. Lien Does Not Extend to Land: An attorney’s lien does not automatically extend to land involved in the litigation.

    The Supreme Court quoted its prior ruling stating, “‘lien does not extend to land which is the subject matter of the litigation.’”

    The Court further explained that the RTC’s order effectively executed Gonzales’ claim for attorney’s fees prematurely, acting as an execution pending appeal without justification. “The order practically executed the claim of respondent Ramon Gonzales that he is entitled to attorney’s fees. In effect, the trial court granted execution pending appeal, without any special reason to do so.”

    Practical Implications

    This ruling has significant implications for both attorneys and landowners in the Philippines. It reinforces the principle that an attorney’s lien is not a blanket right to encumber a client’s property, particularly real estate. Attorneys must pursue other legal remedies to collect their fees, such as filing a separate collection suit.

    For landowners, this case provides assurance that their property is protected from unwarranted liens arising from attorney fee disputes. It highlights the importance of understanding the limits of an attorney’s lien and seeking legal advice if faced with such a situation.

    Key Lessons:

    • Attorneys: Do not assume that you can automatically place a lien on your client’s land to secure your fees. Pursue other legal avenues for collection.
    • Landowners: Be aware of the limitations of attorney’s liens. Your real property is not automatically subject to a lien for unpaid legal fees.
    • Seek Legal Advice: If you are involved in a dispute over attorney’s fees or concerned about a potential lien on your property, consult with a qualified lawyer.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is an attorney’s lien?

    A: An attorney’s lien is a legal right that allows a lawyer to hold a client’s property as security for unpaid fees. It can be either a charging lien (on the proceeds of a lawsuit) or a retaining lien (on the client’s documents).

    Q: Can a lawyer place a lien on my house for unpaid legal fees?

    A: Generally, no. This case clarifies that an attorney’s lien does not automatically extend to land that is the subject of litigation. While they can pursue other collection methods, directly placing a lien on your house is usually not permissible.

    Q: What should I do if a lawyer tries to place a lien on my property for unpaid fees?

    A: Seek legal advice immediately. An attorney can review the situation and advise you on your rights and options.

    Q: What are the other ways a lawyer can collect unpaid fees?

    A: A lawyer can file a separate collection suit against you to recover the unpaid fees. They may also be able to pursue other remedies, depending on the specific circumstances.

    Q: Does this ruling apply to all types of property?

    A: This ruling specifically addresses real property (land). The rules regarding liens on other types of property may be different.

    Q: What does it mean for a court to lose jurisdiction over a case?

    A: Once a case is appealed to a higher court, the lower court generally loses the authority to make further decisions in the case, except for certain limited circumstances.

    ASG Law specializes in property law and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Perfecting Appeals: The Mandatory Nature of Docket Fee Payments in Philippine Courts

    In William P. Chan v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court addressed a critical aspect of appellate procedure: the mandatory nature of paying docket fees within the prescribed period for filing an appeal. The Court ruled that failure to pay these fees within the specified timeframe is a fatal flaw, potentially leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules, ensuring that appeals are perfected in a timely and orderly manner.

    Docket Dilemma: Can a Late Fee Sink an Appeal?

    The case arose from a dispute between the spouses Mario and Gregoria Geronimo and William P. Chan, their financial consultant. Chan successfully secured a loan for the Geronimos, but they failed to pay his agreed-upon “success fee.” Chan sued and won in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Geronimos filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to pay the required appellate docket fees within the prescribed period. The RTC denied their appeal, citing non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, prompting Chan to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

    At the heart of the matter was whether the payment of appellate docket fees is mandatory within the period for taking an appeal. The appellate court relied on the Revised Rules of Court, which allowed some flexibility in the timing and place of payment. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which were in effect at the time of the appeal, contain stricter provisions. This distinction between the old and new rules formed the crux of the legal debate.

    The Supreme Court meticulously examined the relevant provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 4, Rule 41, explicitly requires that “payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees should be made within the period for taking an appeal before the clerk of court which rendered the judgment or order appealed from.” This provision leaves no room for interpretation: payment must be made within the appeal period, and it must be made to the clerk of court of the lower court. The Court underscored the mandatory nature of this requirement, stating that “contrary to the position taken by the appellate court, the place of payment of docket fees is not optional but mandatory on the appellant.”

    The Court also addressed the CA’s reliance on outdated rules. The appellate court had cited Sec. 6, Rule 46, and Sec. 1, par. (d), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court, which the Supreme Court deemed “obsolete and no longer applicable” due to the enactment of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. This highlights the importance of staying current with procedural rules and ensuring that legal arguments are based on the prevailing legal framework.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court invoked Sec. 1, par. (c), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal for failure to pay docket fees. The Court found that the RTC had acted correctly in denying the Geronimos’ appeal, as they had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for perfecting an appeal. The Court noted that the Geronimos had ample time to comply with the requirement, but failed to do so.

    To further illustrate the importance of adhering to procedural rules, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional requirements. While the filing of a notice of appeal within the prescribed period is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived, the payment of docket fees, though seemingly less significant, is also crucial for perfecting an appeal. Failure to comply with either requirement can result in the dismissal of the appeal.

    The Court’s decision in Chan v. Court of Appeals carries significant implications for litigants and legal practitioners alike. It underscores the importance of meticulously following procedural rules, particularly those related to the payment of docket fees. The case serves as a reminder that an appeal is not perfected until all required fees are paid within the prescribed period. This principle is crucial for ensuring the orderly and efficient administration of justice.

    In addition to the procedural aspects, the case also touches on the broader principle of contractual obligations. The Geronimos had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Chan, agreeing to pay him a success fee for his services. Their failure to honor this agreement led to the legal dispute. The Supreme Court’s decision, while focused on procedural matters, ultimately upheld the validity of the contract and Chan’s right to receive the agreed-upon compensation.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential components of the legal system. They provide a framework for ensuring fairness, efficiency, and predictability in the adjudication of disputes. As the Court stated, failure to comply with these rules can have significant consequences, including the dismissal of an appeal. The case emphasizes the need for litigants to be diligent in pursuing their legal claims and to seek legal advice to ensure compliance with all applicable rules and regulations.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the payment of appellate docket fees is mandatory within the period for taking an appeal, as prescribed by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
    What did the Supreme Court decide? The Supreme Court ruled that the payment of appellate docket fees is mandatory and must be made within the prescribed period to perfect an appeal. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the appeal.
    What is the significance of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in this case? The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure superseded the Revised Rules of Court and contained stricter provisions regarding the payment of docket fees. The Supreme Court based its decision on these updated rules.
    Where should the docket fees be paid? According to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the docket fees must be paid to the clerk of court of the lower court that rendered the judgment or order being appealed.
    What happens if the docket fees are not paid on time? If the docket fees are not paid within the prescribed period, the appellate court has the discretion to dismiss the appeal, either on its own motion or upon motion of the appellee.
    Is the filing of a Notice of Appeal enough to perfect an appeal? No, filing a Notice of Appeal is not sufficient. The payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is also a necessary requirement for perfecting an appeal.
    Can financial constraints excuse the failure to pay docket fees on time? The Supreme Court did not explicitly address whether financial constraints could excuse the late payment of docket fees in this particular case. However, the Court noted that the Geronimos had ample time to comply with the requirement but failed to do so.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling for litigants? The ruling underscores the importance of strictly adhering to procedural rules, particularly those related to the payment of docket fees, to ensure that an appeal is properly perfected.

    The William P. Chan v. Court of Appeals case provides a clear illustration of the importance of adhering to procedural rules in Philippine jurisprudence. It emphasizes that while substantive rights are important, they cannot be asserted effectively without strict compliance with the rules of procedure. This decision serves as a crucial reminder for litigants and legal practitioners to prioritize the timely and accurate completion of all procedural requirements.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: William P. Chan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138758, July 6, 2000

  • Understanding Attorney’s Fees: When Can Lawyers Claim Compensation?

    When Can an Attorney File a Claim for Fees?

    TRADERS ROYAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNION-INDEPENDENT, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND EMMANUEL NOEL A. CRUZ, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 120592, March 14, 1997

    Imagine a scenario where a company successfully recovers a significant sum in a labor dispute, thanks to the diligent work of their legal counsel. But what happens when the lawyer seeks additional compensation beyond the initial agreement? Can they file a separate claim for attorney’s fees, even after the main case has concluded? This is the core issue addressed in the landmark case of Traders Royal Bank Employees Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission, offering crucial insights into the rights and limitations of attorneys seeking compensation for their services.

    Distinguishing Ordinary and Extraordinary Attorney’s Fees

    The Supreme Court clarifies the two primary concepts of attorney’s fees: ordinary and extraordinary. Ordinary attorney’s fees represent the reasonable compensation a client pays their lawyer for legal services, based on their employment agreement. Extraordinary attorney’s fees, on the other hand, serve as indemnity for damages, awarded by the court to the winning party, often under Article 2208 of the Civil Code. These are paid to the client, unless they’ve agreed the award goes to the lawyer as extra pay.

    This case focuses on the first type: the compensation a lawyer seeks directly from their client. Understanding this distinction is crucial because it dictates when and how an attorney can claim fees for their work.

    The Civil Code of the Philippines provides the relevant framework:

    • Article 1157 states that obligations arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts, and quasi-delicts.
    • Article 2142 defines quasi-contracts as lawful, voluntary, and unilateral acts that prevent unjust enrichment at another’s expense.

    For instance, if a lawyer successfully defends a client in a complex corporate lawsuit, the ordinary fees would be those agreed upon in their contract. However, if the court awards damages to the client due to the opposing party’s malicious actions, those attorney’s fees would fall under the extraordinary category.

    The Case: A Union’s Dispute Over Attorney’s Fees

    The Traders Royal Bank Employees Union (the Union) engaged the services of Atty. Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz’s law firm through a retainer agreement in 1987, paying a monthly fee of P3,000. During this agreement, the law firm represented the Union’s members in a claim against Traders Royal Bank (TRB) for unpaid bonuses. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which modified the NLRC decision, awarding only holiday pay differentials.

    After the Supreme Court’s decision, Atty. Cruz sought to enforce his attorney’s lien, claiming 10% of the total holiday pay differential awarded to the Union members. The Labor Arbiter granted the motion, but the Union appealed, arguing that the retainer agreement covered all attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, leading the Union to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

    Key events in the case unfolded as follows:

    1. The Union and Atty. Cruz entered into a retainer agreement in 1987.
    2. The law firm filed a claim for holiday, mid-year, and year-end bonuses on behalf of the Union members.
    3. The Supreme Court modified the NLRC decision, awarding only holiday pay differentials.
    4. Atty. Cruz filed a motion to determine his attorney’s fees, seeking 10% of the award.
    5. The Labor Arbiter granted the motion, which was affirmed by the NLRC.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the lawyer’s right to claim fees, quoting:

    “It is well settled that a claim for attorney’s fees may be asserted either in the very action in which the services of a lawyer had been rendered or in a separate action.”

    However, the Court also cautioned against automatically applying the 10% rule from Article 111 of the Labor Code, stating:

    “Article 111 thus fixes only the limit on the amount of attorney’s fees the victorious party may recover in any judicial or administrative proceedings and it does not even prevent the NLRC from fixing an amount lower than the ten percent (10%) ceiling prescribed by the article when circumstances warrant it.”

    Practical Implications for Businesses and Lawyers

    This case serves as a reminder for businesses and individuals to clearly define the scope of legal services and compensation in retainer agreements. It also clarifies the rights of attorneys to seek additional fees for services not covered by the initial agreement. The Supreme Court ultimately modified the NLRC’s decision, reducing the attorney’s fees to P10,000.00, emphasizing the importance of assessing the value of legal services based on quantum meruit – “as much as he deserves.”

    Key Lessons:

    • Clearly define the scope of legal services and compensation in retainer agreements.
    • Understand the difference between general and special retainers.
    • Attorneys can claim fees even after the main case concludes, but the amount must be reasonable and based on quantum meruit.
    • Courts will consider various factors, including the time spent, the complexity of the case, and the benefits to the client, when determining reasonable attorney’s fees.

    For example, a small business owner hiring a lawyer for general legal advice should ensure the retainer agreement specifies whether it covers litigation. If a lawsuit arises, a separate agreement might be necessary to cover the additional work.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is a retainer fee?

    A: A retainer fee is a preliminary fee paid to an attorney to secure their future services. It can be either a general retainer (for ongoing legal advice) or a special retainer (for a specific case).

    Q: Can a lawyer charge additional fees beyond the retainer agreement?

    A: Yes, if the services provided are not covered by the retainer agreement. However, the additional fees must be reasonable and based on the value of the services rendered.

    Q: What is quantum meruit?

    A: Quantum meruit means “as much as he deserves.” It is used to determine the reasonable value of services rendered when there is no express agreement on compensation.

    Q: How does Article 111 of the Labor Code affect attorney’s fees?

    A: Article 111 sets the maximum limit for attorney’s fees that can be awarded in labor cases, which is 10% of the amount recovered. However, it does not mandate an automatic award of 10%.

    Q: What factors do courts consider when determining reasonable attorney’s fees?

    A: Courts consider factors such as the time spent, the complexity of the case, the importance of the subject matter, the skill required, and the benefits to the client.

    Q: Can a lawyer file a claim for attorney’s fees after the main case has been decided?

    A: Yes, a lawyer can file a claim for attorney’s fees even after the main case has been decided, as long as the claim is reasonable and justified.

    Q: What is a charging lien?

    A: A charging lien is a lawyer’s right to assert a claim on the funds or property recovered for a client as security for payment of their fees.

    Q: What happens if there is no agreement on attorney’s fees?

    A: If there is no agreement, the court will determine the reasonable value of the lawyer’s services based on quantum meruit.

    ASG Law specializes in labor law and contract disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.