The Law Offices of Jorge Luis Flores, LLC v. Cruz & Associates ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                              FIRST DIVISION
    BARNES, P. J.,
    MCMILLIAN and MERCIER, JJ.
    NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
    physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
    days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
    http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
    January 29, 2018
    In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
    A17A1983. THE LAW OFFICES OF JORGE LUIS FLORES, LLC
    v. CRUZ & ASSOCIATES.
    MCMILLIAN, Judge.
    In this worker’s compensation case, the Administrative Law Judge awarded
    attorney fees to the employee’s former counsel, The Law Offices of Jorge Luis Flores,
    LLC (“Flores”), following the settlement of the case by the employee’s new counsel,
    Cruz & Associates (“Cruz”). The Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers’
    Compensation1 affirmed the ALJ’s order, but the superior court reversed and
    remanded the case for further proceedings. We granted Flores’ application for
    discretionary appeal in this matter and now reverse the superior court’s order because
    1
    The Administrative Law Judge is hereinafter referred to as the “ALJ,” and the
    Appellate Division of the State Board of Worker’s Compensation is referred to as the
    “Board.”
    we find there was sufficient evidence below to support the award of attorney fees to
    Flores.
    The undisputed facts in the record show that the employee, Martha Rodriguez,
    suffered a compensable work-related injury on July 21, 2005, and on October 29,
    2005, she signed a contingency contract with Flores to pursue her workers’
    compensation claim (the “fee contract”). Flores represented Rodriquez for over six
    years, during which time Flores, associated counsel, and legal assistants performed
    legal services related to her claim, including, but not limited to, ensuring the payment
    of employment benefits, managing medical treatment, engaging in discovery, meeting
    with Rodriguez, and filing motions and other documents on her behalf.
    Around January 12, 2012, Rodriguez terminated Flores’s representation and
    hired Cruz as her new counsel. Flores subsequently filed a notice of lien in the
    amount of $17,180 seeking payment for services rendered and expenses incurred.
    Cruz later settled the case, with the settlement including a payment of $50,000 in
    attorney fees and approximately $1,500 in expenses.
    After the case settled, Cruz contested Flores’ right to recover payment under
    his lien on the grounds that the Flores’ fee contract was unenforceable due to a lack
    of a meeting of minds between the parties and further that Flores had failed to prove
    2
    the value of his services. The ALJ held a hearing on the matter, and based on the
    evidence and testimony presented as well as briefing by the parties, the ALJ found
    that Flores “successfully proved his claim of lien, albeit in quantum meruit rather than
    on his fee contract.” (Emphasis in original.) The ALJ also found that Cruz was correct
    in arguing that “there was no meeting of the minds between [Flores] and [Rodriguez]
    regarding any hourly rates payable under the fee contract, . . . as the fee contract is
    silent in this regard” and that “the contractual language did not specify the recovery
    [Flores] would be entitled to in the event the contingency provided for under the
    contract did not occur or the expenses for which the Employee would be liable in that
    event.” Nevertheless, the ALJ held that “counsel may still prove the value of his
    services performed prior to termination under a theory of quantum meruit.” The ALJ
    concluded that Flores had established that the fair value of its legal services was
    $15,650 and its proven expenses were $1,530; therefore, the ALJ awarded Flores the
    full amount if its lien, $17,180. Cruz appealed the ALJ’s order, and the Board
    affirmed the award, determining that the ALJ’s award was supported by a
    preponderance of the competent and credible evidence and adopting the ALJ’s
    findings of fact and conclusions of law as the Board’s own.
    3
    Cruz then appealed the Board’s award to the Superior Court of Fulton County.
    Following a hearing, the superior court issued an order reversing the award and
    remanding the case for consideration of additional evidence on the fees claimed by
    Flores. The superior court determined that Flores’ fee contract was invalid because
    it was not drafted in accordance with the Georgia Rules of Professional Coduct and
    further because there was no meeting of the minds between the parties as to Flores’
    hourly rates. The superior court also found that there was a clear lack of competent
    evidence to support the Board’s award of the full amount of the lien to Flores. This
    appeal followed.
    Flores argues that the superior court applied the wrong standard of review and
    erred by failing to analyze the issue of quantum meruit, because that issue, and not
    the issue of the fee contract’s validity, was the foundation of the administrative
    rulings. We agree.
    Turning first to the standard of review, we note that superior courts apply the
    same standard of review as this Court does in considering decisions by the Board. In
    workers’ compensation cases,
    both the superior court and this Court are required to construe the
    evidence in a light most favorable to the party prevailing before the
    4
    State Board. It is axiomatic that the findings of the Board, when
    supported by any evidence, are conclusive and binding, and that neither
    the superior court nor this Court has any authority to substitute itself as
    a fact finding body in lieu of the Board.
    (Citation omitted.) Autozone, Inc. v. Mesa, 
    342 Ga. App. 748
    , 752 (804 SE2d 734)
    (2017). “The question of whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in
    evaluating the evidence, however, is one of law, which we review de novo.” (Citation
    and punctuation omitted.) 
    Id. Here, the
    Board found that the parties failed to reach a meeting of the minds
    under the fee contract as to any hourly rates payable or as to the amount of any
    recovery in the event that the fee contract’s contingency did not occur, so the fee
    contract was unenforceable. The Board then relied on the well-settled principle that
    [w]hen a contingent fee arrangement exists between a client and an
    attorney and the client prevents the contingency from happening, the
    attorney is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees for his services that
    have been rendered on behalf of the client. Thus, although prevented
    from recovering under the contract, the attorney still has [a] remedy in
    quantum meruit.
    Ellerin & Assocs. v. Brawley, 
    263 Ga. App. 860
    , 862-63 (2) (589 SE2d 626) (2003).
    Therefore, an attorney who is discharged before earning his contractual contingency
    5
    fee may seek a recovery under quantum meruit. See Tolson v. Sistrunk, 
    332 Ga. App. 324
    , 333 (2) (a) (772 SE2d 416) (2015); Haldi v. Watson, 
    240 Ga. App. 801
    , 802 (2)
    (522 SE2d 696) (1999).
    Moreover, recovery in quantum meruit is available even where, as the superior
    court found here, a fee contract violates the rules of professional conduct, “if the
    services themselves are not intrinsically illegal, or the conduct surrounding execution
    of the contract violates no overriding public interest.” (Citation and punctuation
    omitted.) Genins v. Geiger, 
    144 Ga. App. 244
    , 245-46 (2) (B) (240 SE2d 745) (1977).
    See also Remediation Svcs., Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 
    209 Ga. App. 427
    , 433
    (433 SE2d 631) (1993) (Recovery in quantum meruit is available where the
    underlying transaction was not intrinsically illegal;” rather “where a contract is illegal
    only in part, recovery is allowed on a quantum meruit basis for the part of the services
    which was legal.”). Compare Sapp v. Davids, 
    176 Ga. 265
    (
    168 S.E. 62
    ) (1933)
    (remedy of quantum meruit not available where attorney fee contract was void ab
    initio on the ground that it was champertous because it provided that the attorney
    would relieve the client of the payment of the costs or expenses incidental to the
    employment); Nelson & Hill, P.A. v. Wood, 
    245 Ga. App. 60
    , 64-66 (2) (537 SE2d
    670) (2000) (recovery in quantum meruit unavailable where attorney was attempting
    6
    to recover contingency fee, instead of the value of services rendered, and attorney had
    already been compensated the reasonable value of the services provided to the client).
    Accordingly, the Board properly applied the remedy of quantum meruit after it
    determined that the fee contract was unenforceable, and the superior court erred in
    failing to consider this issue.
    We also agree with Flores that the superior court erred to the extent that it
    applied a de novo standard in reviewing the amount of attorney fees awarded. The
    Board based its award of attorney fees to Flores on factual findings it adopted from
    the ALJ’s order.
    [A]s a reviewing court, our role is not to return to the findings of the
    ALJ and examine whether that decision was supported by a
    preponderance of the evidence, but is instead to review the Board’s
    award for the sole purpose of determining if whether its findings are
    supported by any record evidence. If this Court [or the superior court]
    answers that question in the affirmative, the Board’s findings are
    conclusive and binding, regardless of whether we would have reached
    the same result if given the opportunity to weigh the evidence in the first
    instance.
    7
    (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Emory Univ. v. Duval, 
    330 Ga. App. 663
    , 666-67 (768 SE2d 832) (2015).2 See Bibb County v. Short, 238 Ga.
    App. 291, 292 (518 SE2d 484) (1999) (superior court “not authorized to substitute
    its judgment as to weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses” for that
    of Board) (citation omitted).
    Applying the appropriate standard, we note that “our precedent makes clear
    that when the discharged attorney seeks recovery from a former client under quantum
    meruit, the fees awarded to the attorney should be determined based on the reasonable
    value of the services rendered to the client.” 
    Tolson, 332 Ga. App. at 333
    (2) (a).
    Here, the Board expressly found, based on the testimony from a Flores legal assistant
    and one of the associated attorneys who worked on Rodriguez’s case, as well as
    documentary evidence, that the work performed by the legal assistant “was
    substantive and added value to the client’s case.” The Board further found that the
    testimony and evidence presented about time spent on the case was supported by the
    Flores firm’s Abacus computer notes and case correspondence and showed that
    2
    “Questions of value are peculiarly for the determination of the jury where
    there is any data in evidence upon which they may legitimately exercise their own
    knowledge and ideas and the same rule of course applies to bench trials based on
    quantum meruit for attorney fees.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) 
    Tolson, 332 Ga. App. at 334
    .
    8
    $15,650 was a fair and reasonable value of the legal services provided. Additionally,
    the Board found that Flores had established that he was entitled to recover $1,530.00
    in expenses. In contrast, the Board discounted Rodriguez’s testimony as to the value
    of the services provided by Flores on her case because she has “only limited English
    and has no legal training, [and thus she] could hardly be fully aware of the work being
    performed on her behalf and its significance to her case, and certainly is not qualified
    to opine of the value of the work performed on her behalf.”
    In addition to testimony from a Flores legal assistant and associated counsel,
    the Flores’ Abacus computer notes provide detailed entries regarding the work
    performed on Rodriguez’s case and the time expended, and the case file
    correspondence provides further support. The file also contains documentation
    supporting the amount of expenses claimed by Flores. These documents belie
    Rodriguez’s testimony regarding the limited nature and extent of the representation
    Flores provided to her. Attorney Jorge Flores stated in a notarized attachment to the
    lien that his firm had provided attorney and legal assistant services in the amount of
    $15,650 and had incurred expenses in the amount of $1,530. Although Cruz asserted
    that Flores failed to provide evidentiary support for the hourly rates Flores employed
    9
    in making these calculations, Cruz has never contested the overall amount of these
    calculations.
    Accordingly, we find that the Board’s findings have evidentiary support when
    the evidence is properly viewed in the light most favorable to Flores. Because the
    superior court erred in reversing the Board’s award of attorney fees, we reverse the
    superior court’s judgment and affirm the Board’s award of attorney fees to Flores.
    Judgment reversed. Barnes, P. J., and Mercier, J., concur.
    10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A17A1983.

Judges: McMillian

Filed Date: 1/29/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024