Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Court of Appeals of Maryland· 12/18/1998

Somuah v. Flachs

Citations

  • 721 A.2d 680
  • 352 Md. 241
  • 1998 Md. LEXIS 951

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding that an attorney may not be entitled to a fee in cases of serious misconduct
  • noting that the unauthorized practice of law includes “[ujtilizing legal education, training, and experience ... [to apply] the special analysis of the profession to a client’s problem”
  • stating that a lawyer who has engaged in serious misconduct may not be entitled to recover a fee
  • stating that “[t]he primary rationale for permitting quantum meruit recovery is to prevent unjust enrichment to the client of the benefits of the attorney’s services prior to discharge”
  • stating that “[t]he primary rationale for permitting quantum meruit recovery is to prevent unjust enrichment to the client of the benefits of the attorney’s services prior to discharge”
  • stating that “[t]he primary rationale for permitting quantum meruit recovery is to prevent unjust enrichment to the client of the benefits of the attorney’s services prior to discharge”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Chasanow, Rodowsky

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Somuah v. Flachs

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.