ÿWPC7 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw.å4 ' 6 0J> 0Tˆ 0^Ü 0h: 0r¢ 0| 0† 0 1u¦ 0d U> B)½ DCæ AM)U*v v~± B/vÓL D3 0@R AO’Æá 0D§ D/ë B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-ZU[E\]E^_Ó€iDÒ 3|xi2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌDecember€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€f6XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÞ ÞÌDAVID›€A.€ALEXANDER€andà àà àà à)ÌMACLIN€P.€DAVIS,€JR.,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€œ91„4018„II(III)›ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€à à)à àAppeal€No.̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßR€!# A1-j|€Î` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à€à à)à à01A01„9605„CH„00215ÌJULIA€ANN€WHITE€INMAN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€DAVIDSON€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,€CHANCELLORÌó óÌÌAnne€C.€Martin€#15536ÌDODSON,€PARKER€&€BEHMÌHarlan€Dodson,€III€#2368Ì306€Gay€Street,€Suite€400ÌP.O.€Box€198806ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„8806ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌWard€DeWitt,€Jr.€#2626ÌTRABUE,€STURDIVANT€&€DEWITTÌ511€Union€StreetÌ2500€Nashville€City€CenterÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔMODIFIED€AND€œREMANDEDó óÔ€XÔ›ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTION̛̜̜CONCURS:›ÌœSAMUEL›€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌœÌÌDISSENTS€IN€SEPARATE€OPINION:ÌWILLIAM›€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœò òDAVID›€A.€ALEXANDER€andà àà àà à)ÌMACLIN€P.€DAVIS,€JR.,à àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€œ€91„4018„II(III)›Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9605„CH„00215Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€à à)à àÌJULIA€ANN€WHITE€INMAN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÔ€¼Ôà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XÔÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant,€Julia€Ann€White€Inman€has€appealed€from€theÏjudgment€of€the€Trial€Court€awarding€the€plaintiffs,€Dave€A.€AlexanderÏand€Maclin€P.€Davis,€$141,000€for€balance€due€plaintiffs€for€legalÏservices€in€her€divorce€case.ÌÌà àOn€December€13,€1991,€plaintiffs€filed€this€suit€based€upon€aÏwritten€employment€contract€dated€September€22,€1988,€containing€Ïthe€following€pertinent€provisions:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€Client€has€paid€Attorneys€a€retainer€fee€of€$10,000ÌÌà àà à€€€€The€€amount€€of€€the€€final€€fee€€to€be€€paid€by€Client€forÌà àà àlegal€€services€of€Attorneys€and€lawyers€€and€€clerks€under€Ìà àà àtheir€supervision€shall€be€a€reasonable€€amount€taking€€intoÌà àà àconsideration€€the€time€and€labor€required€€to€perform€€the€Ìà àà àservices€€€properly,€€€the€€€amount€€€involved€€€and€€€results€Ìà àà àobtained,€€and€€other€relevant€factors.€€Said€€final€€fee€shallÌà àà ànot€exceed€15%€of€the€total€sum€(in€money€and€€property)Ìà àà àawarded€€to€€Client€€after€€commencement€€of€€the€€trial€of€Ìà àà àsaid€action€for€divorce€for€alimony€in€solido,€for€five€yearsÌà àà àof€€€alimony€€€in€€futuro,€€and€distribution€€and€€division€of€Ìà àà àproperty,€or€10%€of€such€€total€sum€awarded€to€Client€byÌà àà àsettlement€€prior€€to€€the€€commencement€€of€€€such€€€trial,Ìà àà àprovided€€that€€said€€fee€€shall€€in€€no€event€be€less€than€(a)€Ìà àà à$10,000;€or€(b)€the€total€amount€on€a€time€basis€for€work€Ìà àà àof€€€Attorneys€€and€€other€attorneys€and€clerks€under€their€Ìà àà àsupervision€at€their€usual€hourly€charges€for€work.à àÌÓÓÓÓÌà àà à€€€€Said€€retainer€€fee€€shall€€be€€credited€€toward€€the€total€Ìà àà àcharges€to€client€if€the€charges€for€work€exceed€€$10,000Ìà àà àAttorneys€shall€bill€client€for€said€excess€charges€within€aÌà àà àreasonable€time.€Client€shall€pay€said€charges€at€time€they€Ìà àà àare€billed€to€her.ÌÌà àà à€€€€All€expenses€incurred€by€Attorneys€in€behalf€€of€ClientÌÓÓà àà àshall€be€paid€by€Client€at€the€time€they€are€billed€to€client.ÌÌà àThe€complaint€alleged€the€following:Ìà à1.à àOn€December€13,€1988,€defendant€was€awarded€in€money€andÏproperty€amounting€to€$2,370,200.€Ìà à2.à àOn€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Appeal,€defendantððs€award€wasÏincreased€to€$3,413,430.Ìà à3.à àThe€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€amount€of€the€award€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals.Ìà à4.à àThe€total€value€of€assets€ultimately€delivered€to€defendantÏwas€$4,357,809.75.Ìà à5.à àThe€reasonable€fee€for€plaintiffsðð€services€exceeded€15%€ofÏthe€total€recovery,€but€plaintiffsðð€demands€were€limited€toÏ$501,514.50€in€accordance€with€the€15%€limitation€of€the€contract.Ìà à6.à àAfter€crediting€payments€of€$159,000,€plaintiffsðð€claimed€aÏbalance€due€of€$342,514.50,€plus€interest.ÌÌà àDefendant€answered€and€counter„claimed,€admitting€that€theÏproperty€received€by€her€was€valued€at€$3,357,809.75,€but€denying€thatÏthis€was€its€true€value,€and€denying€the€performance€of€services€to€theÏextent€of€plaintiffsðð€demands€and€seeking€refund€of€part€of€the€feeÏalready€paid.ÌÌà àA€trial€resulted€in€a€jury€verdict€and€judgment€for€plaintiffs€inÏthe€amount€of€$263,985.€€An€appeal€to€this€Court,€produced€an€opinionÏpublished€as€òòAlexander€v.€Inmanóó,€Tenn.€App.€1995,€686€S.W.2d€686,Ïholding€(1)€the€contingent€fee€contract€was€allowable,€but€was€subjectÏto€the€approval€of€the€Trial€Court;€€(2)€plaintiffsðð€time€records€wereÏadmissible;€(3)€evidence€of€duplication€of€services€was€admissible,€andÍ(4)€the€instructions€to€the€jury€were€inadequate.€€The€cause€wasÏremanded€for€a€retrial€to€a€jury.ÌÌà àUpon€remand,€the€parties€agreed€to€submit€the€case€to€the€CourtÏwithout€a€jury€upon€the€record€of€the€previous€jury€trial€with€theÏaddition€of€certain€exhibits.€€In€view€of€the€long€history€of€this€case,Ïall€parties€have€urged€this€Court€not€to€remand€for€furtherÏconsideration,€but€to€resolve€the€issues€of€fact€and€law€in€this€CourtÏupon€the€record€on€appeal.ÌÌÌà àThe€Trial€Judge€filed€a€memorandum€opinion€holding:Ìà à1.à àThe€contract€was€enforceableÌà à2.à àPlaintiffsðð€rendered€servicesÌà à3.à àPlaintiffsðð€violated€their€contract€by€failure€to€bill€theirÏclient€regularly€as€provided€in€the€contract.Ìà à4.à à$300,000€was€a€reasonable€fee€for€plaintiffsðð€servicesÌÌà àJudgment€was€entered€in€favor€of€plaintiffs€for€$141,000.00.ÌÌà àDefendant€appealed€to€this€Court,€presenting€issues€all€of€whichÏrelate€to€the€correct€amount€of€fee€due€plaintiffs.€ÌÌà àWhile€this€appeal€was€pending,€on€September€3,€1996,€theÏSupreme€Court€filed€its€opinion€in€the€case€of€òòWhite€v.€McBrideóó,€No.Ï02501„9510,€PB„00104,€for€publication.€€The€opinion€states:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€The€rule€fashioned€by€the€Cummings€court€is,€in€our€view,Ìà àà àcompletely€€acceptable.€€We€agree€that€attorneys€should€€notÌà àà àbe€€penalized€€for€€innocent€snafus,€€such€€as€€an€oversight€Ïin€Ìà àà àdrafting€that€might€render€€their€€fee€contracts€Ïunenforceable.Ìà àà àTo€do€so€€would€€be€unfair€to€the€lawyer€who€had€€otherwiseÌà àà àdiligently€€pursued€€the€clientððs€interests,€and€€it€would€ÏresultÌà àà àin€€a€€windfall€€to€€the€€client€€who€had€benefitted€€fromÏthose€Ìà àà àservices.€€Thus,€€€a€€€recovery€€€under€€€a€€theory€€of€quantum€Ìà àà àmeruit€is€warranted€in€these€situations.ÌÓÓÓÓÌà àà à€€€€We€€are€€of€€the€€opinion,€€however,€that€€an€€attorney€who€Ìà àà àenters€into€a€fee€contract,€or€attempts€to€collect€a€fee,€Ïthat€isÌà àà àclearly€excessive€under€DR2„106€should€not€be€permittedÏtheÌà àà àadvantage€of€the€Cummings€rule.€€A€violation€of€DR€2„106€isÌà àà àan€€ethical€€transgression€€of€€a€€most€€flagrant€€sort€as€it€ÏgoesÌà àà àdirectly€€to€€the€€heart€€of€the€fiduciary€relationship€thatÏexistsÌà àà àbetween€€attorney€€and€€client.€€To€€permit€an€€attorney€toÏfall€Ìà àà àback€€on€€the€€theory€€of€€quantum€meruit€when€heÏunsuccess„Ìà àà àfully€€fails€€to€€collect€€a€€clearly€excessive€fee€doesÏabsolutely€Ìà àà ànothing€€to€€promote€€ethical€€behavior.€€On€the€contrary,Ïthis€Ìà àà àinterpretation€€would€encourage€attorneys€to€enterÏexorbitant€Ìà àà àfee€contracts,€secure€€that€the€safety€net€of€quantum€meruitÏis€Ìà àà àthere€in€case€of€a€subsequent€fall.Ìà àà àÌÓÓÓÓà àà à€€€€Having€so€concluded,€we€reverse€that€portion€of€€theÏlowerÌà àà àcourtsðð€€judgment€€awarding€€fees€on€a€quantum€€meruitÏbasis.Ìà àà àAny€€prior€€authority€€in€€conflict€€with€€this€opinion€is€Ïhereby€ÌÓÓà àà àexpressly€overruled.à àÌÌà àThe€decision€of€this€Court€in€the€present€case€must€conform€toÏthe€opinion€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòWhite€v.€McBride.€óóÌÌà àThe€former€opinion€of€this€Court€in€the€present€case€stated:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€Trial€€courts€€should€€require€€attorneys€€who€wish€toÏenterÌà àà àinto€a€contingent€fee€arrangement€in€a€divorce€case€toÏsubmitÌà àà àthe€agreement€for€approval€prior€to€considering€the€meritsÏofÌà àà àthe€€divorce€€case.€€While€€the€€trial€courts€may€determineÏthe€Ìà àà àmost€€efficient€€way€€to€€review€€the€€fee€€€arrangement,€€ÏtheyÌà àà àshould€€€€approve€€€the€€€€agreement€€€only€€€if€€€€the€€Ïattorney€Ìà àà àdemonstrates:ÌÌà àà à1.à àThat€the€client€is€currently€unable€to€pay€a€reasonableÌà àà àfixed€fee€€or€will€be€unable€to€pay€a€reasonable€fixed€feeÏfrom€Ìà àà àhis€or€her€anticipated€share€of€the€marital€property€or€fromÏan€Ìà àà àaward€of€alimony€or€spousal€support;€orÌÌà àà à2.à àThat€€the€€opposing€€€party€€€cannot€€€pay€€€reasonable€Ìà àà àpendente€€lite€€attorneysðð€€fees€€pursuant€€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ìà àà àðððð€36„5„101(I),€€€„103(c)€€€(Supp.1994)€€or€€€€an€€€award€€Ïfor€Ìà àà àattorneysðð€fees€at€the€conclusion€of€the€case.ÌÌà àà àIn€addition,€the€attorney€must€demonstrate:ÌÌà àà à3.à àThat€€€the€€€€attorney€€€€has€€€explained€€€€all€€€€relevant€Ìà àà àconsiderations€€€to€€the€€client,€€including€€the€€€availability€ÏofÌà àà àother€€fee€€or€€payment€arrangements€and€the€clientððs€€rightÏtoÌà àà àseek€independent€legal€advice;ÌÌà àà à4.à àThat€the€client€fully€understands€his€or€herÏobligationsÌà àà àunder€the€agreement;€(FN26)ÌÌà àà à5.à àThat€€the€€attorney€€has€€agreed€€to€€credit€€any€€court„Ìà àà àawarded€fees€against€his€or€her€final€fee;€andÌà àÌà àà à6.à àThat€€the€€arrangement€is€fair€and€reasonable€and€is€inÌÓÓà àà àthe€clientððs€best€interest.ÌÌà àMeasured€by€the€above€criteria,€this€Court€finds€that,€despite€itsÏprovision€for€a€ð ðreasonable€fee,ðð€the€contract€is€not€an€enforceableÏcontract,€particularly€because€plaintiffs€did€not€prove€that€defendantÏwas€adequately€informed€as€set€out€in€the€criteria.ÌÌà àHaving€so€found,€this€Court€must€proceed€to€the€second€phase€andÏdetermine€whether€the€plaintiffsðð€have€forfeited€all€rights€to€any€feeÏon€any€theory€by€attempting€to€collect€a€fee€that€is€ð ðclearly€excessiveÏunder€DR2„106.ðð€€ÌÌà àSupreme€Court€Rule€8,€DR2„106(A)€and€(B)€provide„:ÌÓÓà àà àò òDR€2„106.€€Fees€for€Legal€Servicesó óÌà àà à(A)€A€lawyer€shall€not€enter€into€an€agreement€for,€charge,€Ìà àà àor€collect€an€illegal€or€clearly€excessive€fee.Ìà àà àÌà àà à(B)€A€fee€is€clearly€excessive€when,€after€a€€review€of€theÌà àà àfacts,€a€lawyer€of€ordinary€prudence€would€€be€left€with€aÌà àà àdefinite€€and€firm€conviction€that€the€fee€is€in€excess€of€€a€Ìà àà àreasonable€€fee.€€€Factors€€to€€be€€considered€€as€guides€in€Ìà àà àdetermining€€€the€€€reasonableness€€of€€a€€fee€€€include€€the€Ìà àà àfollowing:ÌÌà àà àà à(1)€The€time€and€labor€required,€€the€€novelty€and€Ìà àà àdifficulty€of€the€questions€involved,€and€the€skill€requisiteÌà àà àto€perform€the€legal€service€properly.ÌÌà àà àà à(2)€The€€likelihood,€if€apparent€€to€the€client,€that€Ìà àà àthe€€€acceptance€€€of€€€the€€€particular€€€employment€€€willÌà àà àpreclude€other€employment€by€the€lawyer.ÌÌà àà àà à(3)€The€fee€customarily€charged€in€the€locality€forÌà àà àsimilar€legal€services.ÌÌà àà àà à(4)€The€amount€involved€and€the€results€obtained.ÌÌà àà àà à(5)€The€€time€€limitations€imposed€by€the€client€orÌà àà àby€the€circumstances.ÌÌà àà àà à(6)€The€€€nature€€and€€length€€of€€the€€professional€Ìà àà àrelationship€with€the€client.ÌÌà àà àà à(7)€The€€experience,€reputation,€and€ability€of€the€Ìà àà àlawyer€or€lawyers€performing€the€services.ÌÌà àà àà à(8)€Whether€the€fee€is€fixed€or€contingent.ÌÓÓÌà à1.à àThe€time€and€labor€are€not€satisfactorily€documented€byÏplaintiffs,€and€there€is€evidence€of€unnecessary€duplication.€€TheÍquestions€involved€were€not€novel€or€difficult.€€Extraordinary€skill€wasÏnot€required.Ìà à2.à àThe€likelihood€of€loss€of€business€is€not€satisfactorilyÏshown.Ìà à3.à àThe€evidence€as€to€customary€fees€varies€from€$60,000€toÏ$501,514.50.ÌÌà à4.à àThe€amount€recovered€was€substantial€but,€for€the€mostÏpart€consisted€of€physical€assets.Ìà à5.à àThere€is€some€evidence€of€time€constraints€at€the€inceptionÏof€the€representation,€but€not€thereafter.Ìà à6.à àThere€was€no€previous€or€continuing€general€representationÏof€the€client.Ìà à7.à àThe€experience,€reputation€and€ability€of€the€two€plaintiffsÏis€unquestioned€except€for€the€frail€health€of€Mr.€Alexander.Ìà à8.à àAfter€the€disqualification€of€the€contract,€the€fee€wasÏneither€fixed€nor€contingent.ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€evidence€presented€by€plaintiffs,€their€chargesÏin€this€case€were€in€keeping€with€their€ð ðcustomary€charges€in€similarÏcases.€€For€this€reason,€this€Court€finds€that€the€fee€demanded€byÏplaintiffs€was€not€ð ðòòclearly€unreasonableóóðð€so€as€to€justify€a€forfeitureÏof€any€fee.ÌÌà àBecause€of€this€holding,€it€is€in€order€for€this€Court€upon€de€novoÏreview€to€determine€as€ÌÓÓa€fact€the€just€amount€of€ð ðquantum€meruitðð€recovery€due€plaintiffs.ÌÌÌÓÓà à42€C.J.S.€Implied€Contracts,€524€cites€a€number€of€authorities€forÏallowance€of€a€quantum€meruit€recovery,€but€none€state€any€criterionÏfor€the€amount€of€recovery€except€ð ðreasonable€value.ððÌÌà àIn€òòBaker€v.€Brownððs€Estateóó,€Mo.€1956,€294€S.W.22,€the€appellateÏcourt€affirmed€allowance€of€a€claim€for€nursing€services€and€stated:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€It€€may€€be€€readily€demonstrated€that€the€finding€of€theÌà àà àjury€is€within€the€range€of€reasonableness€as€to€reasonable€Ìà àà àvalue.ÌÓÓà àÌà àIn€56€ALR€2d€13,€is€found€a€comprehensive€analysis€of€the€amountÏof€fee€due€attorneys€for€services€rendered€in€the€absence€of€a€contractÏor€applicable€statute.€€However,€no€criterium€is€found€therein€forÏascertaining€the€value€of€benefit€received,€as€distinguished€from€theÏreasonableness€of€the€fee€sought€or€allowed.ÌÌà àIn€òòMarta€v.€Nepaóó,€Del.€1978,€385€A€2d€727,€a€real€estate€brokerÏcommission€case,€the€Court€said:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€Quantum€meruit€literally€means€ð ðas€€much€€as€heÏdeserves,ðð€Ìà àà àMead€v.€Ringling,€€œWis.Supt.,›€266€€Wis.€523,€64€N.W.2d€222Ìà àà à(1954);€€it€€€is€€€the€€reasonable€€€worth€€or€€value€€of€€ÏservicesÌà àà àrendered€€€for€€€the€€€benefit€€of€€another.€€€There€€was€€Ïexpert€Ìà àà àtestimony€€in€€the€€original€trial€€to€establish€€that€€theÏstandard€Ìà àà àcommission€€for€€procuring€€a€€commercial€€€lease.€€ÏHowever,Ìà àà àevidence€€of€€a€€standard€€commission€is€€neither€€equivalentÏtoÌà àà ànor€commensurate€with€the€evidence€required€forÏdeterminingÌà àà àa€recovery€based€on€quantum€meruit.€€A€standardÏcommissionÌà àà àwhich€€is€€agreed€€upon€€before€services€are€commenced,€isÏan€Ìà àà àarbitrary€figure€which€may€or€may€not€reflect€quantumÏmeruit,€Ìà àà ài.e.,€€€how€€€€much€€€the€€€service€€€is€€€worth€€€or€€€how€€€much€Ìà àà àcompensation€is€deserved€therefor.ÌÌà àà à€€€€The€€evidence€€offered€€at€€that€€proceeding€€shouldÏincludeÌà àà àopinion€€testimony€€€by€€€expert€€€witnesses€€€in€€€response€€Ïto€Ìà àà àhypothetical€€questions€based€upon€the€particular€facts€ofÏthisÌà àà àcase,€as€to€the€worth€of€the€specific€services.ÌÓÓÌà àIn€7€Am€Jur€2d,€Attorneys€at€Law€ðð€277€p.€310,€is€found€in€the€Ìfollowing€text:ÌÓÓà àò òFactors€considered€in€determining€reasonable€value€ofÏservices.ó óÌÌà àà à€€€€In€the€absence€of€a€controlling€contract,€an€attorney€is€Ìà àà àentitled€to€the€reasonable€value€of€services€performed€forÌà àà àhis€client.€€Such€reasonable€value€is€a€question€of€fact€toÌà àà àbe€determined€in€the€light€of€the€particular€circumstances€Ìà àà àof€each€individual€case.ÌÓÓÌà àœThere€was€testimony€that€the€$501,514.50€fee€demanded€byÏplaintiffs€was€reasonable.€€There›€was€œalso€evidence›€that€representationÏwas€available€from€other€attorneys€for€as€little€as€$60,000.00.€€€OneÏexplanation€for€the€wide€divergence€between€plaintiffsðð€charges€and€theÍlower€quoted€fee€is€that€the€defendant€was€ð ðoverstaffed.ðð€€That€is,€theÏnature€of€the€case€did€not€require€the€services€of€so€many€or€soÏexperienced€lawyers.ÌÌà àIt€is€reasonable€to€infer€that,€armed€with€full€and€accurate€adviceÏas€to€her€needs€and€the€availability€of€less€expensive€representation,Ïthe€defendant€would€not€have€contracted€to€pay€the€fee€demanded€byÏplaintiffs,€but€would€obtained€other,€less€expensive€representation.€ÏTherefore,€the€measure€of€the€value€of€benefit€received€by€plaintiffÏfrom€the€services€of€plaintiff€is€the€reasonable€cost€of€employingÏcompetent€counsel€to€perform€the€services€which€were€necessary€andÏwere€performed€by€plaintiffs.ÌÌà àUpon€review€of€the€evidence€de€novo,€this€Court€finds€that€theÏvalue€of€the€services€rendered€by€plaintiffs€to€defendant€(i.e.,€theÏbenefit€received€by€her)€was€$280,757.25.€€Since€plaintiffs€haveÏalready€received€$159,000,€they€are€due€the€additional€amount€ofÏ$121,757.25.€€The€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€reduced€to€thisÏamount.€€Interest€at€the€statutory€rate€will€accrue€from€February€13,Í1996,€the€date€of€entry€of€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court.€€Costs€ofÏthis€appeal€are€assessed€equally.€€That€is,€appellant€will€pay€one€half€ofÏsaid€costs;€and€appellees€will€pay€one€half€of€same.€€The€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€any€necessary€further€proceedings.ÌÓÓÌÓÓò òÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔMODIFIED€AND€REMANDEDà àÔ€XÔ€€€€ó óÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌœCONCURS:›ÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌ̜ӀÓDISSENTS€IN€SEPARATE€OPINION:ÌWILLIAM›€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE