Briefs: MN courts order client to pay atty. fees+.

• Date: 27 February 2002
• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

Minnesota Court rules sanctions dont relieve client of obligation to pay fees to attorney

The fact that attorney fees were imposed on an opposing party as a sanction does not relieve the client from her contractual obligation to pay those fees, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month.

From August 1995 to June 1998, attorney Nancy Ponto represented Elizabeth Soll in her divorce from attorney Joseph Brodsky. The District Court judge noted that at least $74,822.64 of Solls attorney fees were incurred in dealing with Brodskys violations of court orders and in attempting to obtain critical financial information from Brodsky. After being ordered to pay these fees, Brodsky filed for bankruptcy.

Ponto was discharged by Soll after she refused to work further on the clients divorce proceeding until some payment on outstanding attorney fees was made. The attorney later intervened in the action and requested her attorney fees.

Soll argued that the District Court judges previous imposition of her attorney fees as a sanction against her husband for his actions in delaying the proceedings relieved her of liability for the fees. Soll argued further that Ponto had orally modified the representation agreement to limit attorney fees by telling her that fees could go as high as $50,000.

A Hennepin County District Court judge agreed, finding that the attorney fees were limited to $50,000 and that by virtue of the sanction on the husband, the client was relieved of the obligation to pay attorney fees. But the Court of Appeals reversed.

[I]mposing attorney fees as a sanction on an opposing party does not relieve a client of the contractual obligation to pay those fees, wrote Judge James C. Harten. The court also determined that the attorneys comment about fees possibly reaching $50,000 was not sufficient...