Cite as 2011 Ark. 230 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 10-869 Opinion Delivered May 26, 2011 EMERY HUGHES CORPORATION APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CV2006-522, VS. HON. PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, JUDGE AUDRIANNA GRISHAM, P.A. APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED. JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice This case involves the common-law remedy available to a law firm suing a former client to enforce a contingent-fee agreement. Appellant Emery Hughes Corporation (“EHC”) appeals three orders of the Lonoke County Circuit Court: (1) a judgment of $108,865.75 entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of appellee Audrianna Grisham, P.A. (“AGPA”) on its claim for breach of contract; (2) the denial of EHC’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for new trial; and (3) the award of prejudgment interest of $24,196.40, attorneys’ fees of $36,000, and costs of $10,299.75. Because the circuit court erred in submitting to the jury AGPA’s claim for damages under a breach-of-contract theory of recovery, we reverse and remand. By way of explanation, we begin by noting that two remedies are available to discharged attorneys who bring suit under the attorney-lien statute, Arkansas Code Annotated
Cite as 2011 Ark. 230 section 16-22-304 (Supp. 2009). Pursuant to the statute, an attorney discharged without cause may recover the full amount of the contracted fee, while an attorney discharged with cause is limited to a reasonable fee for services rendered prior to discharge under the theory of quantum meruit. Salmon v. Atkinson, 355 Ark. 325, 331 n.1, 137 S.W.3d 383, 386 n.1 (2003). In contrast, “the only common law remedy available to attorneys suing on their contingent fee contracts [is] quantum meruit.” Lancaster v. Fitzhugh, 310 Ark. 590, 592, 839 S.W.2d 192, 193 (1992) (citing Henry, Walden & Davis v. Goodman, 294 Ark. 25, 741 S.W.2d 233 (1987), superseded in part by statute, Act of March 2, 1989, No. 293, § 1, 1989 Ark. Acts 606, 607). In the instant case, AGPA did not bring suit against EHC under the attorney-lien statute. Rather, AGPA sought damages for termination of the parties’ agreement based on three alternative theories of recovery: breach of contract, quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel. We reiterate our holding in Lancaster that the only common-law remedy available to AGPA is a reasonable fee for its services under the theory of quantum meruit. Accordingly, we agree with AGPA’s contention on cross-appeal that, upon remand, it may pursue a quantum meruit claim against EHC. Reversed and remanded. 2
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.