ANTONMARCHI v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that former attorney provided “reasonable and necessary services” and did not “violate[] any legally or professionally imposed duty” to his client, and therefore, discharge was not for cause and charging lien was permitted
• concluding that former attorney provided “reasonable and necessary services” and did not “violate[ ] any legally or professionally imposed duty” to his client, and therefore, discharge was not for cause and charging lien was permitted
• explaining that charging lien should reflect “the reasonable value of the legal services rendered up to the date of counsel’s withdrawal or discharge”
• noting that, under New York law, a hearing is required to determine the amount of attorney's fee on a quantum meruit basis (citing Mason v. City of N.Y. , 67 A.D.3d 475 , 889 N.Y.S.2d 24 , 25 (1st Dep't 2009) )
• “Courts typically find a discharge ‘for cause’ where there has been a significant breach of legal duty.” (quotation marks omitted)
• “A hearing is required to determine if [an attorney] was discharged for cause, and, if not, the amount of his fee on a quantum meruit basis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).