How do we value ten hours of legal work performed by a discharged attorney who significantly contributes to a twenty-million-dollar settlement? In Faricy v. API Trust, the Minnesota Supreme Court provided eight factors that district courts should use to determine the quantum meruit value of services provided by an attorney under a contingent fee agreement when the attorney is discharged before the contingency occurs. Two of the eight factors address concerns specific to the context of a discharged contingent fee attorney, which was an issue of first impression for the court.
This case note begins by exploring the factors and approaches that were historically considered to determine the quantum meruit value of legal work and the compensation of attorneys. A discussion of the facts, procedural history, and holdings of Faricy v. API Trust follows. Next, the case note argues the likely limitations of the eight-factor test when applied to future cases and provides potential solutions for avoiding fee disputes in situations similar to Faricy v. API Trust. Finally, this note concludes that inconsistencies may remain in future district court decisions because the weight that applies to each of the factors in the eight-factor test is unclear.