Richard Adler v. Joe Childers, Jr.

Filing

OPINION filed : The district court's opinion is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judge; Deborah L. Cook, Circuit Judge and Stephen J. Murphy , III, U.S. District Judge (Authoring).

Case: 14-6367

Document: 28-2

Filed: 06/16/2015

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0455n.06
No. 14-6367
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD ADLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOE F. CHILDERS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Jun 16, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Before: GIBBONS and COOK, Circuit Judges; MURPHY, District Judge.1
MURPHY, District Judge. Dr. Richard Adler hired attorney Joe Childers on a
contingency fee basis to help him sue a property developer and a construction company. After
two years of litigation, Dr. Adler gave Childers permission to settle the case for $362,250. The
attorneys for both parties agreed on a tentative settlement and the court sua sponte stayed the
case pending completion of the settlement agreement. After Dr. Adler learned that the district
court had dismissed the case from its active docket, he accused Childers of dismissing the case
without prior approval and misrepresenting facts to the court, he expressed concern about
Childers’ desire not to go to trial, and he stated that the agreement was full of provisions he
could not accept. Childers responded that he would reinstate the case, but that his motion for
reinstatement would be accompanied by a motion to withdraw. Dr. Adler then emailed the
district court, claimed that he was without counsel and requested the court to restore the matter to
1

The Honorable Stephen J. Murphy, III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-6367

Document: 28-2

Filed: 06/16/2015

Page: 2

the court’s active docket. Childers filed a subsequent motion to withdraw, as well as a motion for
attorney’s fees and a lien, seeking quantum meruit compensation in lieu of a contractual
contingency fee.
The district court held a hearing and issued a written opinion, in which the court
determined that Childers could recover a quantum meruit fee award under Kentucky law. It
explained that the Kentucky Supreme Court had not specifically addressed whether an award
based on quantum meruit was available when both parties contributed to the breakdown of the
attorney-client relationship. Nonetheless, it found the case comparable to Kamber v. Abrams, No.
2011-ca-000988-MR, 2012 WL 5305735 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2012) (unpublished). In both
cases, the client repeatedly questioned the attorney’s ability to represent him and was culpable in
undermining the employment arrangement.
The district court then determined the appropriate fee. Based on Childers’ thirty-year
experience as an attorney, his previous hourly rate, his specialized knowledge, and the skill with
which he had litigated the case, the Court found a reasonable rate of $300 per hour. It also
determined that Childers had billed 292.33 hours. After taking account of the amounts that Dr.
Adler had already paid, the district court awarded $77,890.19 in outstanding legal fees.
On appeal, Dr. Adler contends that the district court erred in granting a quantum meruit
fee award and that the sum awarded was unreasonable. Having reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion, we adopt the district court’s opinion and reasoning as our own and
AFFIRM.