Faricy Law Firm, P.a., Appellant/cross-Respondent v. Api, Inc. Asbestos Settlement Trust, Respondent/cross-Appellant.

Summary

The court held that the reasonable value of services provided by a contingent-fee attorney discharged before the contingency occurs must be determined through an equitable, multi-factor quantum meruit analysis. The factors include the fee arrangement, timing of termination, contributions of others, and six factors traditionally used to evaluate attorney-fee reasonableness; the contingent-fee agreement is relevant but does not automatically establish the recovery. The court affirmed the court of appeals as modified and remanded for application of the clarified framework. Chief Justice Gildea, joined by Justice Anderson, dissented, arguing that Faricy presented insufficient evidence of the reasonable value of its services and that the district court's denial should have been reinstated.