Melat, Pressman & Higbie, L.L.P., F/k/a Melat, Pressman, Ezell & Higbie L.L.P., and Howarth & Smith v. Hannon Law…

Summary

The dissent would hold that the quantum meruit claim was governed by the two-year catch-all limitations period and was untimely regardless of whether accrual occurred when the services were performed or when the other attorneys retained the recovered fees. It also agrees that the contingent-fee rules do not directly govern the attorney fee-sharing agreement, while cautioning that the agreement may independently preclude recovery in quantum meruit. The dissent further rejects the majority's rigid approach to unpreserved legal issues, reasoning that an appellate court may address a controlling legal error apparent from the record.