The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In February 1998, Ford (P) consulted with attorney Spada regarding a possible medical malpractice action for the treatment received by her daughter at Medical (D). Using documents provided by P, Spada obtained an expert medical opinion that a viable medical malpractice case existed. By letter dated April 8, 1998, attorney Harding informed Spada that P had retained his office to proceed with the medical malpractice action. Harding requested that Spada sign a consent to change attorney form. The letter acknowledged that P had originally retained Spada and agreed to split the counsel fees in 'an equitable manner.' The next day, Spada had a telephone conversation with Harding wherein the attorneys agreed that Spada would receive 33.33% of any counsel fee. Spada wrote to Harding asking for confirmation of the agreement in writing. On May 7, 1998, Harding sent Spada a check to reimburse Spada's disbursements but made no mention of any agreement to split counsel fees. Spada wrote Harding requesting that Harding forward the counsel fee agreement as soon as possible. Spada thereafter received a letter confirming the split. The case was eventually settled resulting in a fee of $99,701.48. Spada petitioned Supreme Court for an order directing payment of 33.33% of the fee to him in accordance with the parties' agreement and Harding cross-petitioned for an order extinguishing Spada's claim for counsel fees. The Supreme Court held Spada had a lawyer-client relationship with the plaintiff entitling him to a legal fee based on quantum meruit. It also found that the agreement letter was sent from Harding's law office without Harding's authorization and, therefore, did not create a binding agreement regarding the split of counsel fees. Both parties appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.