ÿWPC) _Ä€Åi€£_ I¢ˆ+£“ÌõQ8e?ë°¿÷%W|%­·è׃¢îÈ£çÊ$éRÝWe;Æ6xFzËQXÖXôŒÃׯÛ2’†Q¨³v‚k06TbýúC—ŽÈ±”©ÆŸaÍ»±ÔÉÙQô•’j@ënÐ]7ŽU~ÞÎäQÅÕ€©Ê"Æ…•GŠF|œÐ¯ŸžÒwÅ¢Û'çì¶c÷2mS‰Ý*_Žßû=à6 £á>I  ¹ïÁœôéTüc´g•Jêu_µÉÎâÙòkCÞ{¡à?\{h±öø”žNØx7ò•7J¾KY•'Ÿ¨ßÕ#a´gƒ‹_·¿"«œ¡ÇŠ&m¢ÝÒ˜Z¶'r7_¸DVAâ©æí$ òÚtß­›Ûæ¨ S›"ÔÜQÏ{Ö2zèïŽH]"†›Ý¤ÇºTçå²ÎªlõsP“†ªð@Ý&uø“X[=áßQ’3 ÏzüCG*ÔÅIbá]âÒY˜EÇNUR!&ÛÆYZ;†p¦Oë¸Bþ~ü‚¨ˆ(ýãýãTÔÆV?ÜGåyFzÏÚ0¿ëxd:Ò£Û‚—Ëb°˜@´gBø Ñ’š…]O\êZ³Žˆ‹@üqÞ¼0é3RE´b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U&N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ±Ns 0 Du 1¹EF 72Hz 1u‹ 72 0c2o• 1‡ 72‹ 1‡½ 72D 0wv 1í 72z 1¬ 729 1k 72ø 1* 72· 1é 72v 1¨ 725bg 1o 72þÉ02ùÆ+ ãñ /Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô" 0 ë$$$$ Bî$î$ 0¤ % D3¯% D-â% 0K&& ASZ&Æ­& 0¤s' 0D( A«[(˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»nY+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+relCOREÔjŸ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ¸Ý ƒR.$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€These€expenses€totaled€$800,000€advanced€by€Wolff€Ardis.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) Ý ƒR.$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Mr.€Cheatham€kept€no€time€records.€€The€1500€hours€was€purely€a€guesstimate.€€The€total€net€fee€generatedÐ ° Ðby€the€contractual€arrangement€with€Johnson€was€$1,422,722.50,€which€was€insufficient€to€pay€the€attorneys€at€theirÐ tÄ Ðstandard€hourly€rates,€had€that€been€the€case.€€Wolff€Ardisðð€documented€time€records€recorded€19,000€hours.€€Moreover,Ð 8ˆ ÐMr.€Cheathamððs€guesstimate€of€1500€hours€included€his€hours€expended€on€the€action€against€Hunter€in€which€WolffÐ üL ÐArdis€did€not€participate.€€At€the€time€Cheatham€withdrew,€Wolff€Ardis€had€6000€hours€invested€in€the€case.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à eÝ ƒR.$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€claim€against€Hunter€did€not€settle€until€after€the€products€liability€claims€settled.€€Wolff€Ardis€concludedÐ ° Ðthe€settlement€with€Hunter,€but€made€no€claim€to€any€of€the€fee€resulting€from€that€settlement.(š½CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.0’²CEKSY_ekqAutoList3A.(1)A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(ÖÙCEMU]emu}AutoList4(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)"(1)(æÙCEMU]emu}AutoList5(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)$(1)(öÙCEMU]emu}AutoList6(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)&(1)(ÚCEMU]emu}AutoList7(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)((1)(ÚCEMU]emu}AutoList8(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)*(1)(&ÚCEMU]emu}AutoList9(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1),(1)- ù-(GEGOW_gowAutoList10(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)/(1) ¿Ý ƒR.$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€No.€01„A„01„9810„CV„00539,€1999€WL824298€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999). (Ý ƒR.$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Even€so,€this€number€includes€his€time€expended€on€the€negligence€action€which€was€settled,€as€noted,€afterÐ ° Ðthe€products€case.€€Except€for€the€guesstimate,€the€proof€is€uncontradicted€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€expended€about€500€hoursÐ tÄ  Ðon€the€product€case.€€Bass,€Berry€&€Sims,€who€succeeded€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô,€invested€850€hours. ¼Ý ƒR.$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€No.03„A01„9810„PB00335,€1999€WL486826,€(Tenn.€Ct.€App€1999). ÙÝ ƒR.$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€brief€filed€on€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamsÔ_Ô€behalf€repeatedly€recites€that€he€was€ð ðforced€to€withdraw.ðð€€This€is€anÐ ° Ðambiguous€over„statement.€€It€is€clear€that€he€withdrew€because€he€could€not,€or€would€not,€handle€his€share€of€theÐ tÄ Ðlooming€expenses€and€this€fact€led€to€discord. %Ý ƒR.$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Robert€Walker€was€formerly€with€Berry,€Bass€&€Sims.€€€When€he€changed€firms,€he€took€the€Ô_ÔescrowedÔ_Ô€fundsÐ ° Ðwith€him.(|G2.$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^í»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáÕò»»Ô d(|3‰n$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^í»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰n$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^í»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^í»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼^í»»»ÔÑ8€QXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îW<^íÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼^í»îîW< #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€9,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XQX»¼^íÔÌò òÔ#†¼^í»XXQó#ÔRICHARD€L.€JOHNSON,€òòet€al.óó€v.€STONEY€R.€HUNTER,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XQX»¼^íÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€95C„1573€€€€€€Thomas€Brothers,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„03099„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€25,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€issue€in€this€case€involves€an€equitable€òòdivisionóó€of€a€fixed€attorney€fee€under€òòquantum€Ô_ÔmeruitÔ_ÔóóÔ#†¼^í»XXQ{#ÔÔ‡XQX»¼^íÔ.€Ð xÈ  ÐThe€trial€judge€awarded€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€a€portion€of€the€fee€by€multiplying€the€number€of€hoursÐ d´ Ðinvested€by€an€hourly€rate.€€We€hold€that€this€method€is€not€òòquantum€Ô_ÔmeruitÔ_ÔÔ#†¼^í»XXQy#ÔÔ‡XQX»¼^íÔ€óówhich€requires€aÐ P  Ðconsideration€of€the€factors€listed€in€DR€2„106.Ð <Œ ÐÓ¼ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ d ÐModified€and€Remandedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼^í»àXQÑ#ÔÔ‡XQX.¼^íÔWilliam€H.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cain,€J.óó€joinedÐ Ø( Ðand€òòDavid€H.€Welles,€Sp.€J.óó,€dissented€and€filed€an€opinion.Ð Ä ÐÌGlen€G.€Reid,€Jr.,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€and€Robert€J.€Walker,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ œì Ðappellants,€Patrick€M.€Ô_ÔArdisÔ_Ô€and€Wolff€Ô_ÔArdisÔ_Ô.Ð ˆØ ÐÌAbby€R.€Ô_ÔRubenfeldÔ_Ô€and€David€B.€Lyons,€Nashville,€Tennessee€for€the€appellee,€Ô_ÔDentyÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô.Ð `° ÐÓüÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼^í»XXQ+#ÔÔ‡XQX»¼^íÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼^í»XXQE #ÔÔ‡XQX»¼^íÔÓ  Óà  àThis€is€the€second€appearance€of€this€arduous€and€voluminous€case€which€we€held€requiredÐ #`" Ðthe€application€of€the€doctrine€of€òòquantum€Ô_ÔmeruitÔ_ÔóóÔ#†¼^í»XXQ£ #ÔÔ‡XQX»¼^íÔ€to€a€dispute€over€a€division€of€attorney€fees.€€TheÐ ü#L# Ðtrial€judge€initially€awarded€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€one„third€of€a€contingent€fee;€we€reversed,€upon€a€findingÐ è$8 $ Ðthat€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔArdisÔ_Ô€had€no€meeting€of€minds€on€the€advancement€of€expenses€which€renderedÐ Ô%$!% Ðany€contract€unenforceable.€€The€case€was€remanded€for€the€trial€court€to€make€a€reasonable€divisionÐ À&"& Ðof€the€contingency€fee€under€the€theory€of€òòquantum€Ô_ÔmeruitÔ_ÔóóÔ#†¼^í»XXQÁ #ÔÔ‡XQX»¼^íÔ€and€based€on€the€factors€listed€in€DR2„Ð ¬'ü"' Ð106.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€on€remand€awarded€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_ÔÔ#†¼^í»XXQp#ÔÔ€XQX»¼^íÔ€$300,000€plus€interest€at€10€percent€perÐ p*À%* Ðannum€from€November€23,€1998.€€Ô_ÔArdisÔ_Ô€appeals.€€The€award€is€reduced€to€$200,000€plus€interestÐ \+¬&+ Ðaccrued€at€the€Ô_ÔescrowedÔ_Ô€rate.Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôò òÓ  ÓI.ó óÐ ° ÐÓÐÓÌà  àOur€opinion€by€Judge€Lillard€in€the€first€appeal€is€reported€at€1999€WL1072562.€€It€recitesÐ ˆØ Ðthe€history€of€the€case€and€the€reason€why€the€division€of€the€fee€must€be€decided€on€the€theory€ofÐ tÄ Ðòòquantum€merit.óó€€We€held:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àRecovery€under€the€theory€of€quantum€merit€is€limited€to€the€actualÐ 8 ˆ Ðvalue€of€services€rendered.€€òòSee€Castellióó,€910€S.W.2d€at€428.€Ð $ t ÐCheatham€testified€that€he€did€not€keep€hourly€billing€records€for€hisÐ  ` Ðtime€spent€on€the€case€because€it€was€a€contingency€fee€case.€€DR€2„Ð ü L  Ð106€lists€factors€on€which€a€reasonable€fee€can€be€based:Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(1)à0` x` xàThe€time€and€labor€required,€the€novelty€and€difficultyÐ À  Ðof€the€questions€involved,€and€the€skill€requisit€toÐ ¬ü  Ðperform€the€legal€service€properly.Иè xx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(2)à0` x` xàThe€likelihood,€if€apparent€to€the€client,€that€theÐ pÀ Ðacceptance€of€the€particular€employment€will€precludeÐ \¬ Ðother€employment€by€the€lawyer.ÐH˜xx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(3)à0` x` xàThe€fee€customarily€charged€in€the€locality€for€similarÐ  p Ðlegal€services.Ð \xx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(4)à0` x` xàThe€amount€involved€and€the€results€obtained.Ðä4xx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(5)à0` x` xàThe€time€limitations€imposed€by€the€client€or€by€theÐ ¼  Ðcircumstances.Шøxx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(6)à0` x` xàThe€nature€and€length€of€the€professional€relationshipÐ €Ð Ðwith€the€client.Ðl¼xx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(7)à0` x` xàThe€experience,€reputation,€and€ability€of€the€lawyerÐ D!” Ðor€lawyers€performing€the€services.Ð0"€ xx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(8)à0` x` xàWhether€the€fee€is€fixed€or€contingent.Ð$X"xx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àSup.€Ct.€Rule,€Code€of€Prof.€Resp.€DR€2„106;€òòsee€alsoÐ à%0!$ ÐConnors€v.€Connors,óó€594€S.W.2d€672,€676€77€(Tenn.€1980)€(citingÐ Ì&"% ÐDR€2„106).€€We€find€that€these€factors€are€applicable€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdetermination€of€Cheathamððs€attorneyððs€fees€under€the€theory€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðòòquantum€meruitóó.Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAt€the€September€hearing€on€attorneyððs€fees,€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðâ âconsidered€several€factors€that€are€included€in€DR€2„106.€€The€trialÐ œì Ðcourt€discussed€Cheathamððs€significant€contributions€to€the€case,Ð ˆØ Ðincluding€the€fact€that€he€laid€the€groundwork€on€the€case,€the€timeÐ tÄ Ðthat€he€spent€working€on€the€case,€and€the€expenses€that€he€paid.€€TheÐ `° Ðtrial€court€also€noted€that€at€the€time€of€Cheathamððs€withdrawal€fromÐ L œ Ðthe€case,€the€highest€settlement€offer€that€had€been€proposed€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ð$300,000.€€However,€because€the€trial€court€utilized€a€joint€ventureÐ $ t Ðanalysis€rather€than€determining€the€fee€based€onòòóó€òòquantum€meruitóó,Ð  ` Ðfindings€were€not€made€regarding€several€factors€listed€under€DR€2„Ð ü L  Ð106.€€For€example,€the€trial€court€made€no€findings€as€to€the€skillÐ è 8  Ðinvolved€in€the€work€Cheatham€performed,€the€extent€to€whichÐ Ô$  ÐCheathamððs€work€for€the€Johnsons€precluded€him€from€working€onÐ À  Ðother€cases,€the€fee€customarily€charged€in€Nashville€for€similar€legalÐ ¬ü  Ðservices,€or€the€nature€and€length€of€Cheathamððs€professionalÐ ˜è  Ðrelationship€with€the€Johnsons.€€Therefore,€the€factual€findings€by€theÐ „Ô  Ðtrial€court€are€not€sufficient€for€this€Court€to€determine€the€amount€ofÐ pÀ Ða€reasonable€attorneyððs€fee€pursuant€to€DR€2„106.€€òòConsequently,€weÐ \¬ Ðmust€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€reasonable€division€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€contingency€fee€in€accordance€with€the€factors€listed€in€DR€2„106.€Ð 4„ ÐOn€remand,€the€trial€court€should€take€into€consideration€the€fact€thatÐ  p ÐCheatham€did€not€participate€in€the€majority€of€the€preparation€forÐ  \ Ðtrial€in€this€case.óó€[Emphasis€added].ÐøH` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8 @ à*€*€*€*€*€*€*€*Ð Ð  ÐÓY%ÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€sum,€the€record€indicates€that€Cheatham€and€Ardis€had€no€meetingÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€minds€on€the€advancement€of€expenses,€which€was€an€essentialÐ ”ä Ðterm€of€their€agreement.€€The€failure€to€agree€on€this€essential€termÐ €Ð Ðcauses€the€partiesðð€contract€to€be€unenforceable.€€Therefore,€the€lawÐ l¼ Ðof€joint€venture€is€inapplicable€and€Cheathamððs€attorneyððs€fees€mustÐ X ¨ Ðbe€based€on€the€value€of€the€services€rendered€un€the€theory€ofÐ D!” Ðòòquantum€meruitóó.€€The€trial€courtððs€award€to€Cheatham€of€one„third€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€contingency€fee€is€reversed.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€the€trialÐ #l! Ðcourt€to€make€a€reasonable€division€of€the€contingency€fee€under€theÐ $X" Ðtheory€of€òòquantum€meruitóó€and€based€on€the€factors€listed€in€DR€2„106.€Ð ô$D # ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà  àWe€briefly€allude€to€the€genesis€of€this€dispute.€€In€1994€Johnson€suffered€a€brain€injury€whenÐ ¸'#& Ða€pick„up€truck€he€was€driving€collided€with€a€Chevrolet€Camaro€equipped€with€a€removable€glassÐ ¤(ô#' Ðroof€panel€which€dislodged€and€embedded€a€shard€in€his€brain.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àJohnson€employed€Mr.€Cheatham€to€pursue€his€claim€against€Hunter,€the€driver€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âCamaro,€whose€policy€limits€were€$50,000.€€Mr.€Cheatham€turned€his€attention€to€the€productsÐ œì Ðliability€aspect€of€the€matter€and€contacted€the€Wolff€Ardis€law€firm€which€was€experienced€inÐ ˆØ Ðproduct€liability€cases€involving€injuries€caused€by€glass.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€Wolff€Ardis€firm€accepted€employment.€€The€complaint€was€amended€to€include€causesÐ L œ Ðof€action€for€product€liability€against€General€Motors,€Libbey„Owens„Ford€Company,€and€PittsburgÐ 8 ˆ ÐPlate€Glass€Industries.€€During€the€course€of€the€litigation,€a€dispute€arose€when€it€developed€that€Mr.Ð $ t ÐCheatham€was€unwilling€to€advance€his€share€of€expenses€for€the€products€liability€claim.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.Ð  ` ÐCheatham€elected€to€withdraw€from€the€case.€€Wolff€Ardis€then€associated€the€Nashville€firm€ofÐ ü L  ÐBass,€Berry€&€Sims€as€local€counsel.€€About€two€weeks€before€Mr.€Cheatham€filed€his€motion€toÐ è 8  Ðwithdraw,€General€Motors€and€Libbey„Owens„Ford€Company€offered€to€settle€for€$300,000€whichÐ Ô$  Ðoffer€was€rejected€by€the€plaintiffs.€€Mr.€Cheatham€filed€his€motion€to€withdraw€on€September€26,Ð À  Ð1997.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àMore€than€one€year€after€Mr.€Cheatham€withdrew,€the€products€liability€action€was€settledÐ „Ô  Ðfor€$4,332,500.€€Two€attorneys€for€the€product€liability€defendants€testified€that€Mr.€CheathamÐ pÀ Ðcontributed€little€if€anything€towards€settlement.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€net€fee€generated€by€the€settlement€was€$1,422,722.50,€from€which€the€trial€judge,€onÐ 4„ Ðremand,€awarded€Mr.€Cheatham€$300,000,€based€upon€a€finding€that€he€had€expended€at€least€ð ð1500Ð  p Ðhours€in€his€representation€of€the€plaintiffs,ðð׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€that€a€reasonable€hourly€fee€was€$200.00.€€ThisÐ  \ Ðcalculation€has€no€relation€toòòóó€òòquantum€meruit;€óóusing€the€same€calculation€Wolff€Ardisðð€fee€wouldÐ øH Ðbe€$3,800,000,€an€absurd€result.€€An€algebraic€approach€„€7.9€percent€to€Mr.€Cheatham€and€92.1Ð ä4 Ðpercent€to€Wolff€Ardis,€based€solely€on€hours€expended€„€does€not€satisfy€the€mandate€of€the€remandÐ Ð  Ðto€ð ðtake€into€consideration€the€fact€that€Cheatham€did€not€participate€in€the€majority€of€theÐ ¼  Ðpreparation€for€trial€in€this€case.ðð€€A€formulaic€solution€based€on€the€fact€that€when€CheathamÐ ¨ø Ðwithdrew€with€1500€hours€invested,€Wolff€Ardis€had€only€6000€hours€invested€or€32€percent€of€itsÐ ”ä Ðtotal€hours,€resulting€in€a€fee€to€Cheatham€of€$138,817.80,€does€not€comport€with€òòquantum€meruitóó.Ð €Ð ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.ó óÐ X ¨ ÐÓè6ÓÌà  àWolff€Ardis€argues€that€the€appropriate€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€with€aÐ 0"€  Ðpresumption€that€the€judgment€is€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€it.€€Rule€13(d)Ð #l! ÐT.R.A.P.Ð $X" ÐÐ ô$D # Ðà  àMr.€Cheatham€argues€that€the€appropriate€standard€of€review€is€whether€the€trial€judge€abusedÐ ° Ðhis€discretion,€citing€a€litany€of€cases€holding€òòthat€in€the€allowance€of€attorney€feesóó€trial€courts€areÐ œì Ðvested€with€wide€discretion.€€òòSee,€e.g.€ò òThreadgill€v.€Threadgillóó,€ó ó740€S.W.2d€419€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ˆØ Ð1987).€€The€cases€relied€upon€by€Mr.€Cheatham€are€inapposite,€because€we€are€not€here€called€uponÐ xÈ Ðto€fix€attorney€fees.€€That€has€already€been€accomplished€by€contract.€€We€are€concerned€with€aÐ d´ Ðproper€and€justiciable€òòdivision€of€contractual€feesóó€between€competing€attorneys€based€on€theÐ P   Ðequitable€principles€of€òòquantum€meruitóó€which€limits€recovery€[division]€òòto€actual€value€of€theÐ < Œ Ðservices€renderedóó.€€òòò òCastelli€v.€Lienóóó ó,€910€S.W.2d€420€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€The€factors€on€whichÐ ( x Ða€reasonable€fee€can€be€based€are€those€mandated€by€DR€2„106,€as€heretofore€noted.€€We€concludeÐ  d Ðthat€the€proper€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novo€óóon€the€record€accompanied€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ  P  Ðjudgment€is€correct€unless€the€evidence€otherwise€preponderates.€€òòSee,ò ò€Alexander€v.€Inmanóóó ó,€974Ð ì <  ÐS.W.2d€689€(Tenn.€1998).€€Accordingly,€we€consider€the€evidence€adduced€on€each€of€the€mandatedÐ Ø(  Ðfactors.Ð Ä  ÐÌÓ€ (¦Ù83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£²>ÝÔ2¦ÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝòòThe€time€and€labor€required,€the€novelty€and€difficulty€of€the€questionsÐ œì  Ðinvolved,€and€the€skill€requisite€to€perform€the€legal€service€properly.óó݃3£²>ë>ÝŒÐˆØ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àThe€amount€of€time€Mr.€Cheatham€devoted€to€the€products€liability€case€should€beÐ `° Ðdetermined.€€He€testified€that€his€best€estimate€of€the€total€amount€of€time€spent€in€representing€theÐ Lœ ÐJohnsons€was€around€1500€hours,€but€this€is€somewhat€misleading€since€he€represented€them€in€theÐ 8ˆ Ðnegligence€action€against€Hunter.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð $t ÐÌà  àIt€cannot€be€determined€from€the€record€the€number€of€hours€Mr.€Cheatham€expended€on€theÐ üL ÐHunter€claim.€€The€host€of€exhibits€filed€relative€to€the€negotiation€of€subrogation€interests€inÐ è8 Ðconnection€with€the€proposed€settlement€of€the€Hunter€claim€are€revealing,€which,€whenÐ Ô$ Ðsuperimposed€upon€his€testimony,€demonstrates€beyond€peradventure€that€a€substantial€portion€ofÐ À Ðthe€time€making€up€his€guestimate€of€1,500€hours€was€related€solely€to€his€work€on€the€Hunter€claim.Ð ¬ü ÐÌà  àWolff€Ardis€argues€that€the€only€evidence€in€the€record€of€the€amount€of€time€Mr.€CheathamÐ „Ô Ðspent€on€the€products€liability€case€is€the€following€testimony€of€Ardis:Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ€ (š½88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£ëEÝÔ2š½ÔÚ  ÚQÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝAll€right.€€Based€on€your€personal€knowledge€and€work€on€theÐ H!˜ Ðfile€and€work€with€Mr.€Cheatham,€what€is€your€best€estimateÐ 4"„  Ðof€the€total€hours€Mr.€Cheatham€would€have€expended€inÐ  #p! Ðdoing€work€in€connection€with€those€tasks€that€related€to€theÐ  $\" Ðproducts€liability€claim?€€Iððm€not€talking€about€the€work€thatÐ ø$H # Ðrelated€to€the€underlying€Hunter€claim,€but€the€productsÐ ä%4!$ Ðliability€claim.݃3£ëE8FÝŒÐÐ& "%¸ x¸ x Ðâ âŒÝ  ÝÐ ¼' #& ÐØ! !ØÓ€ (’²08ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£ŽIÝÔ2’²ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝMy€best€estimate€on€direct€contact€and€communication€withÐ ° Ðâ âMr.€Cheatham€would€be€between€300€and€500€hours.€€YouÐ œì Ðknow,€there€were€two€separate€issues€out€here.€€Mr.Ð ˆØ ÐCheatham,€Your€Honor,€had€a€separate€contract€dealing€withÐ tÄ Ðthe€Stoney€Hunter€case€and€Exhibit€No.€1€points€that€out.€Ð `° ÐWolff€Ardis€had€no€ownership,€no€interest€in€any€recovery€onÐ L œ Ðthe€Stoney€Hunter€claim€and€that€was€.€.€.€and€itððs€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontract,€Your€Honor.€€That€was€Mr.€Cheathamððs€primaryÐ $ t Ðresponsibility€for€the€first€year,€the€underlying€case€againstÐ  ` ÐStoney€Hunter€which€we€received€nothing€from.݃3£ŽIÛIÝŒÐü L ¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌWe€find€no€testimony€in€the€record€in€contradiction€of€the€above.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIt€is€not€disputed€that€Wolff€Ardis€invested€19,000€hours€in€the€products€liability€case.€Ð ¬ü  ÐApplying€minimum€hourly€rates€for€routine,€non„specialized€legal€work,€the€value€of€their€servicesÐ ˜è  Ðwould€be€$2,120,524.€€Moreover,€Bass,€Berry€&€Sims€invested€approximately€850€hours€of€work€onÐ „Ô  Ðthe€products€liability€case€after€Mr.€Cheatham€withdrew.€€It€is€appropriate€to€consider€that€of€the€totalÐ pÀ Ðhours€invested€in€the€products€case€„€20,350€„€Mr.€Cheatham€contributed€2.5€percent.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€novelty€and€difficulty€of€the€questions€involved,€and€the€skills€requisiteÐ 4„ Ðto€perform€the€legal€service€properly,€it€is€clear€that€Mr.€Ardis€was€the€attorney€who€possessed€theÐ  p Ðnecessary€knowledge€and€skills€to€properly€prosecute€this€case.€€The€trial€court€found€that€ð ðthis€caseÐ  \ Ðpresented€novel€and€difficult€questions€of€law€that€required€Cheatham€to€use€not€only€his€own€skillsÐ øH Ðas€an€attorney€but€also€required€him€to€use€his€best€efforts€to€find€an€associate€who€was€familiar€withÐ ä4 Ðproducts€liability€cases.€€Mr.€Cheatham€conceded€that€he€did€not€have€the€required€knowledge€andÐ Ð  Ðskills€to€handle€the€products€liability€case.€€He€testified€that€during€a€meeting€with€Richard€andÐ ¼  ÐJennifer€Johnson;Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€told€them€that€I€had€not€had€any€experience€dealing€with€theÐ €Ð Ðproducts€liability€cases,€other€than€a€few€minor€cases,€but€that€I€wouldÐ l¼ Ðsee€if€I€could€find€someone€who€could€handle€it€and€if€we€couldÐ X ¨ Ðpursue€that,€because€I€thought€it€would€be€terrible€if€all€he€could€getÐ D!” Ðwas,€say€the€policy€limits€in€this€case.Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà  àIt€was€Mr.€Cheathamððs€lack€of€experience€that€led€him€to€contact€Ardis,€and€Mrs.€JohnsonÐ $X" Ðtestified€about€the€relative€skill€of€the€attorneys€when€asked€why€the€Johnsons€ultimately€agreed€thatÐ ô$D # ÐMr.€Cheatham€should€withdraw:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWe€felt€like€Mr.€Ardis€was€much€more€qualified€to€carry€on€with€ourÐ ¸'#& Ðcase€and€had€the€knowledge€and€had€done€most€of€the€work€too,€atÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€point€in€the€case,€and€had€the€knowledge€to€continue€with€ourÐ )à$( Ðcase.Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àWe€agree€with€Wolff€Ardis€that€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€Mr.€Cheatham€rendered€anyÐ ° Ðservices€that€required€special€skill,€knowledge€or€expertise.€€In€fact,€we€note€that€a€number€of€theÐ œì Ðservices€rendered€by€Mr.€Cheatham€were€services€that€could€have€been€performed€by€a€paralegal,Ð ˆØ Ðclerk€or€runner,€such€as€ordering€the€police€report,€ordering€medical€records€and€filing€documentsÐ tÄ Ðwith€the€court.Ð `° ÐÌÓ€ "(ÖÙ80ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ZÝÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝòòThe€likelihood,€if€apparent€to€the€client,€that€the€acceptance€of€the€particularÐ 8 ˆ Ðemployment€will€preclude€other€employment€by€the€lawyer.óó݃3£ZÈZÝŒÐ$ t` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€by€accepting€this€employment,€ð ð.€.€.€Cheatham€diminished€hisÐ ü L  Ðability€to€provide€legal€services€to€other€clients€and€impacted€on€his€assistance€to€his€wife€in€herÐ è 8  Ðpractice€of€law€in€their€partnership.ðð€€It€is€not€clear€from€the€record€that€Mr.€Cheathamððs€employmentÐ Ô$  Ðin€the€products€case€affected€other€employment.Ð À  ÐÌÓ€ $(æÙ88"ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£m^ÝÔ2æÙÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝòòThe€fee€customarily€charged€in€the€locality€for€similar€legal€services.óó݃3£m^¦^݌Иè ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àIt€is€difficult€to€discern€from€the€record€the€fee€customarily€charged€in€Nashville€from€theÐ pÀ Ðkind€of€services€performed€by€Mr.€Cheatham,€who€admitted€that€he€was€not€qualified€to€handle€theÐ \¬ Ðproducts€liability€case.€€The€trial€judge€found€that€Mr.€Cheatham€was€entitled€to€$200.00€per€hour,Ð H˜ Ðbut€this€finding€was€based€on€Mr.€Cheathamððs€customary€charges.€€Since€he€was€not€qualified€toÐ 4„ Ðhandle€a€products€liability€case,€presumably€his€hourly€rate€would€be€considerably€less.Ð  p ÐÌÓ€ &(öÙ88$ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£‰bÝÔ2öÙÔ(Ú  Ú4Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝòòThe€amount€involved€and€the€results€obtained.݃3£‰bÂbÝŒÐøH` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌóóà  àA€substantial€amount€of€money€is€involved€in€this€dispute,€and€a€good€result€was€ultimatelyÐ Ð  Ðobtained€for€the€Johnsons.€€But€the€record€indicates€that€Mr.€Cheathamððs€involvement€in€the€resultsÐ ¼  Ðobtained€was€not€significant.€€The€trial€court€found:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àClearly,€Ardis€and€Wolff€performed€significantly€more€work€in€thisÐ €Ð Ðcase€than€Mr.€Cheatham€did.€€A€great€deal€of€that€work€took€placeÐ l¼ Ðafter€Mr.€Cheathamððs€withdrawal.€€Thatððs€for€two€reasons:€numberÐ X ¨ Ðone,€clearly,€some€more€work€was€required€of€Ardis€and€WolffÐ D!” Ðbecause€of€Mr.€Cheathamððs€withdrawal.€€Secondly,€the€case€wasÐ 0"€  Ðapproaching€the€trial,€and€it€was€that€time€of€a€trialððs€life€when€thereÐ #l! Ðis€more€work€involved.Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà  àTestimony€from€defense€counsel€for€two€of€the€product€defendants€establishes€that€Mr.Ð à%0!$ ÐCheathamððs€involvement€in€the€case€had€virtually€noting€to€do€with€the€settlements€ultimatelyÐ Ì&"% Ðachieved.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àAt€this€juncture,€we€note€that€our€abjuration€that€the€trial€court€should€take€into€considerationÐ )à$( Ðð ðthe€fact€that€Mr.€Cheatham€did€not€participate€in€the€majority€of€the€preparation€for€trialðð€did€notÐ |*Ì%) Ðfall€upon€fertile€ground.€€It€is€fair€to€say€that€Mr.€Cheatham€conferred€no€benefit,€either€to€theÐ h+¸&* ÐJohnsons€or€Ardis,€after€he€withdrew.€€For€this€reason€the€ð ðresults€obtainedðð€in€assessing€the€valueÐ ° Ðof€Cheathamððs€services€should€be€measured€in€large€part€as€of€the€time€of€his€withdrawal.€€At€thatÐ œì Ðtime,€no€recovery€had€been€obtained.€€Two€weeks€before€he€filed€his€Motion€to€Withdraw,€aÐ ˆØ Ðsettlement€conference€was€held,€which€Mr.€Cheatham€attended,€and€an€offer€of€settlement€ofÐ tÄ Ð$300,000€was€made€by€General€Motors€and€Libbey„Owens„Ford.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThis€offer€did€not€approach€the€value€of€the€case,€but€the€proof€clearly€demonstrates€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence€developed€by€Wolff€Ardis€after€Mr.€Cheathamððs€withdrawal€motivated€the€defendants€toÐ $ t Ðre„evaluate€the€issue€of€liability.Ð  ` ÐÌÓ€ ((Ú88&ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£¹mÝÔ2ÚÔ(Ú  Ú5Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝòòTime€Limitations.óó݃3£¹mòmÝŒÐè 8 ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà8  àThis€factor€is€not€relevant€to€a€resolution€of€the€case.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ€ *(Ú88(ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£µoÝÔ2ÚÔ(Ú  Ú6Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝòòThe€nature€and€length€of€the€professional€relationship€with€the€client.óó݃3£µoîo݌Иè ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àMrs.€Johnson€was€the€bookkeeper€for€the€firm€of€Cheatham€and€Palermo€at€the€time€Mr.Ð pÀ ÐJohnson€was€injured.€€The€employer„employee€relationship€was€a€pleasant€one,€but€there€is€noÐ \¬ Ðevidence€of€any€prior€attorney„client€relationship.Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ€ ,(&Ú88*ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£²rÝÔ2&ÚÔ(Ú  Ú7Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝòòThe€experience,€reputation,€and€ability€of€the€lawyer€performing€the€services.óó݃3£²rër݌Рp` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àIt€is€not€disputed€that€Mr.€Cheatham€was€inexperienced€in€the€products€liability€area.Ð øH ÐÌÓ€ /(G88,ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ÿtÝÔ2GÔ(Ú  Ú8Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝòòWhether€the€fee€was€fixed€or€contingent.óó݃3£ÿt8uÝŒÐÐ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àThe€fee€was€contingent.€€The€trial€court€found€that€ð ðCheatham€accepted€this€employmentÐ ¨ø Ðdespite€the€uncertainties€and€risks€of€a€contingent€fee€contract.ðð€€But€as€the€case€progressed€it€wasÐ ”ä ÐWolff€Ardis€who€assumed€all€the€risks.€€In€the€course€of€representing€the€Johnsons€pursuant€to€theÐ €Ð Ðcontingency€fee€contract,€Wolff€Ardis€advanced€over€$800,000€in€expenses€as€compared€to€aÐ l¼ Ðrelatively€small€sum€advanced€by€Mr.€Cheatham.€€The€trial€court€aptly€observed€that€ð ð[a]dvancingÐ X ¨ Ðexpenses€of€this€magnitude€in€a€contingency€fee€case€is€clearly€an€important€part€of€the€risk€theÐ D!” Ðlawyer€assumes€in€agreeing€to€take€such€a€case.ðð€€It€is€fair€to€say€that€if€Wolff€Ardis€had€not€advancedÐ 0"€  Ðthe€funds€required€to€develop€the€case,€the€recovery€would€have€been€minimal.€€The€proof€revealsÐ #l! Ðthat€in€addition€to€the€out„of„pocket€costs€for€experts€and€the€like,€Wolff€Ardis€sent€salariedÐ $X" Ðemployees€to€Detroit€on€numerous€occasions€to€review€and€obtain€what€turned€out€to€be€over€aÐ ô$D # Ðmillion€pages€of€documents€dealing€with€the€development€and€structure€of€the€Camaro,€as€well€asÐ à%0!$ Ðcrash€test€videos€on€the€Camaro.€€The€evidence€and€theories€developed€as€a€result€of€those€effortsÐ Ì&"% Ðare€what€caused€the€defendants€to€re„evaluate€their€exposure€in€this€case.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.ó óÐ )à$( Ðâ âÓþ{ÓÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àA€recovery€in€òòquantum€meruitóó€is€limited€to€the€actual€value€of€the€services€rendered.€€òòò òCastelliÐ ° Ðâ âv.€Lienó óóó,€910€S.W.2d€420,€428€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€The€trial€court€arrived€at€its€award€to€Mr.Ð œì ÐCheatham€of€$300,000€by€multiplying€a€ð ðreasonable€hourly€feeðð€for€Mr.€Cheatham€by€the€numberÐ ˆØ Ðof€hours€he€claimed€to€have€spent€on€the€products€liability€case€and€on€the€Hunter€matter.€€WolffÐ tÄ ÐArdis€argues€that€in€utilizing€this€method€to€arrive€at€a€division€of€the€fee€under€òòquantum€meruitóó,€theÐ `° Ðtrial€court€erred€in€its€application€of€the€legal€principles€governing€òòquantum€meruitóó,€because€theÐ L œ Ðdivision€of€the€fee€was€based€on€the€value€of€the€detriment€to€òòCheatham,óó€rather€than€on€the€value€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€respective€benefits€conferred€by€Mr.€Cheatham€and€Wolff€Ardis.€€We€agree.€€Tennessee€law€isÐ $ t Ðclear€that€an€award€in€òòquantum€meruitóó€is€not€to€be€determined€by€the€value€of€the€services€to€the€oneÐ  ` Ðwho€performs€the€services,€but€instead,€should€be€based€on€the€òòvalue€of€the€benefit€conferred.óóÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€òòò òMcGee€v.€Maynardó óóó,׃1×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€considered€the€issue€of€the€proper€amount€of€an€attorney€feeÐ Ô$  Ðwhere€the€attorney€was€discharged€before€the€litigation€was€concluded.€€We€held:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWith€respect€to€òòquantum€meruitóó€the€only€proof€in€the€record€isÐ ˜è  Ðappellantððs€affidavit€showing€the€hours€she€spent€on€the€case€and€herÐ „Ô  Ðhourly€rate.€€A€recovery€in€òòquantum€meruitóó,€however,€is€not€measuredÐ pÀ Ðby€the€detriment€to€the€plaintiff€but€by€the€benefit€conferred€on€theÐ \¬ Ðdefendant.€€òòCastelli€v.€Lienóó,€910€S.W.2d€420€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€ò òTheÐ H˜ Ðtwo€are€obviously€not€the€same.ó ó€€In€òòSkeens€v.€Rust€EngineeringÐ 8ˆ ÐCompanyóó,€1989€WL70739,€at€*3€(Tenn.€App.€June€30,€1989),€thisÐ (x ÐCourt€referred€to€the€factors€that€bear€on€a€ð ðreasonableðð€fee€inÐ d Ðdetermining€the€amount€of€a€recovery€based€on€òòquantum€meruitóó.€€TheÐ P Ðtime€devoted€to€performing€the€legal€service€is€only€one€factor€in€anÐ ì< Ðextensive€list.€€See€Rules€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€Rule€8,Ð Ø( ÐCode€of€Professional€Responsibility,€DR€2„106(B).ÐÄ` x` x ÐÌà  àThere€is€uncontradicted€evidence€in€the€record€which€is€critical€to€a€determination€of€theÐ œì Ðvalue€of€the€benefit€conferred€by€Mr.€Cheatham.€€In€accord€with€the€partiesðð€agreement,€Mr.Ð ˆØ ÐCheatham€was€responsible€for€preparing€the€medical,€damages€and€accident€portions€of€the€productsÐ tÄ Ðliability€case€for€trial.€€He€completed€none€of€those€tasks.€€He€retained€no€experts€to€testify€as€to€theÐ ` ° Ðmedical€aspects€of€the€case€nor€the€economic€damages€to€Johnson.€€There€were€three€eye€witnessesÐ L!œ Ðto€the€accident€whose€testimony€was€critical€to€rebut€the€defendantsðð€contentions€that€Johnson€wasÐ 8"ˆ  Ðguilty€of€comparative€fault€in€the€accident,€but€Mr.€Cheatham€never€located,€nor€did€he€interviewÐ $#t! Ðthose€eye€witnesses.Ð $`" ÐÌà  àMr.€Cheatham€contributed€about€7€percent€of€the€total€work€performed€in€this€case,€if€hisÐ è%8!$ Ðguesstimate€of€1500€hours€is€accepted,׃2T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€without€consideration€of€the€fact€that€his€work€wasÐ Ô&$"% Ðroutine.€€Wolff€Ardis€postulates€that€on€this€basis€Mr.€Cheathamððs€fee€should€be€$100,990.54€andÐ ° Ðrefers€us€to€the€recent€case€of€òòò òEstate€of€Carpenter€v.€Sullivanóóó ó׃3×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€as€authority€for€the€methodologyÐ œì Ðinherent€in€a€division€based€on€percentages.€€While€this€approach€obviously€has€merit,€we€do€notÐ ˆØ Ðbelieve€that€in€the€circumstances€of€this€case€a€mathematical€solution€would€comport€with€theÐ tÄ Ðequities€involved.€€Taking€into€account€all€of€the€requisite€factors€we€conclude€that€the€evidenceÐ `° Ðpreponderates€against€the€division€of€the€fees€as€ordered€by€the€trial€judge,€and€preponderates€inÐ L œ Ðfavor€of€an€award€to€Mr.€Cheatham€of€$200,000.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIV.ó óÐ  ` ÐÓëŽÓÌà  àWe€now€take€up€the€issue€of€interest€on€the€award,€or,€better€said,€the€division€of€the€fees.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAs€noted,€an€Order€was€entered€on€January€9,€1998€allowing€Mr.€Cheatham€to€withdraw.׃4¤×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÀ  ÐThis€Order€directed€that€there€could€be€no€disbursement€of€fees€until€a€division€was€determined.€Ð ¬ü  ÐAfter€the€products€liability€case€was€settled,€Mr.€Cheatham€filed€a€motion€that€16€2/3€percent€or€one„Ð ˜è  Ðhalf€of€the€attorney€fee€be€deposited€with€the€Clerk€or€held€by€Berry,€Bass€&€Sims€pending€a€hearingÐ „Ô  Ðon€his€lien.€€After€he€was€initially€awarded€one„third€of€the€generated€fee,€Mr.€Cheatham€filed€aÐ pÀ Ðmotion€to€ð ðdeposit€funds€in€dispute€with€the€Clerk.ðð€€This€motion€was€heard€on€October€30,€1998Ð \¬ Ðwith€the€trial€judge€expressing€the€opinion€that€more€advantageous€interest€rates€might€be€obtainedÐ H˜ Ðelsewhere,€and€directed€counsel€to€reach€an€agreement€accordingly.€€Consequently,€the€disputed€feeÐ 4„ Ðwas€deposited€with€Berry,€Bass€&€Simms€and€presently€is€held€in€an€escrow€account€at€the€law€firmÐ  p Ðof€Walker,€Bryant€&€Tipps.׃5¸×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€Order€provides€that€ð ðCheatham€is€entitled€to€recover€interest€.€.€.€computed€at€the€rateÐ ä4 Ðof€10€percent€per€annum€accruing€from€November€23,€1998€until€paid€to€Mr.€Cheatham.ðð€€ThisÐ Ð  Ðdecretal€provision€is€not€entirely€clear,€since€the€identity€of€the€obligor€is€not€revealed.€€It€is€a€òòdivisionóóÐ ¼  Ðof€funds,€and€not€a€òòjudgmentóó€for€or€against€an€entity,€with€which€we€are€concerned,€and€the€awardÐ ¨ø Ðof€a€maximum€statutory€rate€of€interest,€to€be€paid€by€Wolff€Ardis€ð!ð€apparently€ð!ð€is€clearly€notÐ ”ä Ðauthorized.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€fee€initially€awarded€to€Mr.€Cheatham,€i.e.,€$480,426.59,€has€remained€in€escrow€sinceÐ X ¨ ÐOctober€1998.€€The€escrow€agent€will€pay€to€Mr.€Cheatham€from€this€account,€the€sum€ofÐ D!” Ð$200,000.00€plus€interest€earned,€at€the€escrowed€rate,€from€November€23,€1998€to€the€date€ofÐ 0"€  Ðpayment.€€The€balance€of€$280,426.59,€with€accrued€interest€at€the€escrowed€rate,€will€be€paid€overÐ ° Ðto€Wolff„Ardis.Ð œì ÐÌà  àCosts€are€assessed€equally.€€The€judgment€is€modified€in€accordance€herewith€and€the€caseÐ tÄ Ðis€remanded€for€all€necessary€purposes.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGE