ÿWPCó' …# VU:a %› 0 4¡4Õéøw@ 0x@ 0D¸ 0Jü 0TF 0^š 0hø 0r` 0|Ò 0†N 0Ô 1ud U,Ù 0d BiU,†U *²B)ÜDC D3H AM{&È 0@î|.Òªp|ì ðv~ývÓ{ AON&Æ& 0Dc' D/§' BÖ'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Óz!tÔôÔô3|x DE  D   DÓ€(((3ÝÙ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òSeptember€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò rÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€record€does€not€make€clear€how€or€when€this€happened,Ïpresumably€à àFirst€Tennessee€simply€informed€the€court€that€there€were€no€contents€inÏthe€box€à àto€turn€over.Ì ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€reveals€that€relatively€little€was€done€with€regard€to€the€estate.€€TheÏonly€à àmeaningful€pleading€is€Whiteððs€petition€on€behalf€of€Kasper€for€an€elective€shareÏon€à àMay€31,€1991,€and€this€petition€was€never€acted€upon.€€Furthermore,€severalÏà àessential€matters,€such€as€taxation€requirements,€were€not€taken€care€of€by€theÏà àadministrator.€€We€can€glean€several€reasons€for€the€delay€in€administering€theÏà àestate.€€First,€and€of€only€minor€importance,€is€the€fact€that€Peter€Bloom,€aÏà àbeneficiary€of€certain€shares€of€stock€under€Leighððs€will,€claimed€that€the€willÏhad€à àbeen€forged€and€that€he€was€actually€entitled€to€all€the€shares€of€that€particularÏà àstock.€€Second,€two€pieces€of€real€property€owned€by€Leigh€were€located€inÏTexas,€à àwhich€could€have€taken€some€time€to€properly€value€and€dispose€of.€ÏMost€à àimportantly,€however,€it€appears€that€the€administrator€simply€had€noÏexperience€à àin€handling€relatively€large€estates.€€Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ ž ÒÒ ° ÒTwo€former€Shelby€County€probate€judges,€Joseph€Evans€and€JamesÏWatson,€testified€that€$150€per€hour€was€the€maximum€rate€they€would€awardÏfor€probate€work.Ì úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ ž ÒÒ ° ÒThe€probate€court€also€considered€the€reasons€for€the€termination€ofÏWhiteððs€employment,€reasoning€that€if€White€had€been€discharged€withoutÏcause€he€was€entitled€to€recover€under€the€contract;€but€if€he€had€beenÏdischarged€with€cause,€he€was€limited€to€a€recovery€on€a€òòquantum€meruitóóÏbasis.€€The€court€concluded€that€White€had€been€discharged€with€cause,€andÏthe€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€this€holding.€€However,€although€the€holding€isÏan€accurate€statement€of€law€and€probably€correct€under€the€facts,€it€was,Ïnevertheless,€unnecessary€for€a€resolution€of€this€case.€€Once€the€probateÏcourt€held€that€the€contract€violated€DR€2„106,€White€could€not€recover€underÏthat€contract,€regardless€if€he€had€been€discharged€with€cause€or€not.€ÏBecause€this€holding€is€not€necessary,€we€will€not€discuss€it€here.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ ž ÒÒ ° ÒThe€Court€of€Appeals€did€not€address€this€issue,€choosing€instead€toÏfocus€on€the€issue€of€whether€White€was€discharged€with€cause.€€As€weÏindicated€in€note€4,€however,€that€issue€was€unnecessary€for€a€resolution€ofÏthe€case€as€the€probate€court€had€already€held€that€the€fee€was€clearlyÏexcessive€under€DR€2„106.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€&&X„d&ÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ , ÑÑ ` ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ7€÷„XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€X°d&Ó›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€œJACKSON›€ÌÌÌÌÌFRANK€L.€WHITE,à àà àà àà à)à àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ€€€€€€Filed:€September€3,Ï1996›à àà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àSHELBY€PROBATEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌHUBERT€A.€McBRIDE,€EXECUTORà à)à àHon.€Leonard€Pierotti,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02S01„9510„PB„00104ÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appellantóó:à àà àœà à›à àòòFor€Defendant„Appelleeóó:ÌÌFrank€J.€Glankler,€Jr.à àà àà àœà àJames›€T.€Bland,€Jr.ÌRobert€L.€Huttonà àà àà àœà à›à àMemphis,€TennesseeÌGlankler€BrownÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌ̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€+,);+'h|¾å` Å `€€Lß›à@ àÔ€'„ÔÌÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€'XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€AFFIRMED€IN€PART;à àà àà àà àà àÌREVERSED€IN€PART.à àà àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.ÌÓÓ€€à àThis€case€presents€the€question€of€whether€the€plaintiff,€attorney€FrankÏWhite,€may€recover€attorneyððs€fees€from€the€estate€of€Kasper€McGrory.€€ThisÏbroad€question€may,€in€turn,€be€divided€into€two€specific€subissues:€(1)€whetherÏthe€contingency€fee€contract€between€White€and€McGrory€is€ð ðclearly€excessiveððÏunder€Disciplinary€Rule€2„106€of€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility,€Tenn.ÏSup.€Ct.€R.€8,€€and€œis,›€œthus,›€unenforceable;€and€(2)€if€the€contingency€fee€contractÏis€unenforceable,€whether€White€œmay,›€œnevertheless,›€recover€attorneyððs€fees€on€aÏòòquantum€meruitóó€basis.€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€hold€that€the€contract€isÏunenforceable€and€that€White€is€not€entitled€to€recover€under€the€theory€ofÏòòquantum€meruitóó.€€Because€the€probate€court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€held€thatÍWhite€could€not€recover€under€the€contract,€but€could€recover€on€a€òòquantumÏmeruitóó€basis,€we€reverse€the€latter€part€of€the€judgment.€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌòòÓ  Óà àò òFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àœA›€full€account€of€the€facts€is€necessary€to€put€the€above„stated€issues€inÏœperspective;›€we€œshall,€therefore,›€set€them€out€in€some€detail.€€The€plaintiff,€FrankÏWhite,€was€a€friend€and€legal€representative€of€Kasper€McGrory€and€his€wifeÏRuby€Leigh€Anglin€McGrory€for€several€years;€in€the€early€1970s,€he€drafted€willsÏfor€them€in€which€each€left€all€his€or€her€assets€to€the€surviving€spouse.€€TheÏMcGrorysðð€relationship,€however,€apparently€deteriorated€thereafter.€In€the€fall€ofÏ1990,€while€suffering€from€an€illness€that€would€eventually€result€in€her€death,ÏLeigh€wrote€a€holographic€will€in€which€she€left€several€specific€bequests€toÏfamily€members€and€friends,€but€made€no€mention€whatsoever€of€Kasper.€€ThisÏwill€was€placed€in€her€safe,€which€contained€a€great€many€of€her€assets,Ïincluding€jewelry,€deeds€to€real€property€in€Texas,€and€numerous€stockÏcertificates.€€Ìà8 àÌà àDuring€Leighððs€illness€her€brother,€Roma€Anglin,€traveled€to€Memphis€fromÏhis€home€in€œTexas›€œand,›€with€Whiteððs€assistance,€secured€a€durable€power€ofÏattorney€for€her.€€On€December€17,€1990,€just€days€before€Leighððs€death,€RomaÏAnglin€and€Vincent€Smith,€one€of€Kasperððs€nephews,€opened€œLeighððs›€safe€andÏmade€a€detailed€inventory€of€its€contents.€€After€completing€the€inventory,€RomaÏremoved€the€contents€and€placed€them,€pursuant€to€his€power€of€attorney,€in€aÏsafe€deposit€box€at€a€First€Tennessee€Bank€in€Memphis.€€At€some€point€shortlyÏafter€the€inventory€was€taken,€Vincent€Smith€provided€copies€of€that€document€toÏboth€Kasper€McGrory€and€White.€€€€€Ìà àLeigh€died€on€December€22,€1990;€œafter›€the€funeral,€Roma€Anglin€returnedÏto€Texas,€taking€the€holographic€will€with€him.€€Soon€thereafter€Kasper€expressedÏa€desire€to€œput›€Leighððs€estate€in€order,€and€he€asked€White€to€assist€œhim.€›€WhiteÏagreed€to€help,€and€he€apparently€contacted€Roma€and€Leighððs€other€relatives€inÏTexas€to€find€out€if€they€would€be€willing€to€come€to€Shelby€County€and€have€theÏestate€probated€there.€€œEvidently,›€White€did€not€receive€a€positive€response€fromÏthese€Texas€relatives,€and€he€advised€Kasper€to€wait€and€see€what€wouldÍhappen.€€Kasper€continued,€however,€to€insist€on€taking€action€with€regard€to€theÏestate.€€Thus,€on€February€28,€1991,€he€and€White€entered€into€an€agreement€inÏwhich€White€was€ð ðto€force€the€probate€of€Leigh€McGroryððs€estate€in€ShelbyÏCounty,€Tennessee€to€ascertain€assets,€1/3€of€which€belong€to€the€husband,€inÏorder€to€recover€same.ðð€€For€these€services€White€was€to€be€paid€a€$2,500Ïretainer€plus€ð ðone„third€of€gross€recovery€above€and€in€excess€of€retainer.ððÌÌà àOn€March€8,€1991,€White€filed,€in€the€Shelby€County€Probate€Court,€aÏpetition€to€open€Leigh€McGroryððs€estate€and€to€issue€letters€of€administration.€ÏThe€petition€stated€that€the€Texas€relatives€had€not€shown€any€willingness€toÏcome€to€Shelby€County€to€probate€the€œestate›€and€that€the€estate€needed€to€beÏprobated€in€order€to€protect€Kasperððs€McGroryððs€interest€therein.€€Moreover,€theÏpetition€provided€that€Kasper€had€previously€attempted€to€impound€the€contentsÏof€the€safe€deposit€box€by€means€of€a€detainer€warrant€issued€against€FirstÏTennessee€Bank;€œthe›€petition€asked€the€probate€court€clerk€to€issue€a€citation€toÏthe€bank€ordering€it€to€appear€and€show€cause€why€it€had€not€turned€over€theÏcontents€of€the€box.€€Finally,€the€petition€asked€the€clerk€to€issue€a€citation€toÍRoma€Anglin€ordering€him€to€appear€in€the€probate€court€and€surrender€the€will.€€ÌÌà àOn€March€11,€1991,€the€probate€court€entered€an€order€appointing€JamesÏAllison€as€administrator€of€Leigh€McGroryððs€estate.€€The€court€also€ordered€theÏissuance€of€the€requested€citations€to€First€Tennessee€Bank€and€Roma€Anglin.€€ÌÌà àOn€March€27,€1991,€Verda€Hogue,€Leighððs€sister€living€in€Texas,€filed€aÏpetition€in€the€probate€court€asking€it€to€(1)€admit€the€will€taken€from€the€safe€toÏprobate;€(2)€appoint€Verda€Hogue€executrix€of€the€estate;€and€(3)€revoke€theÏletters€of€administration€previously€issued€to€James€Allison.€€The€probate€courtÏset€the€hearing€on€the€petition€for€April€22,€1991.€€ÌÌà àAt€some€point€before€the€petition€was€heard,€it€came€to€light€that€RomaÏAnglin€had€not€only€taken€the€will€from€the€jurisdiction,€but€had€also€removedÏLeighððs€assets€from€the€First€Tennessee€safe€deposit€box€and€taken€them€toÍœTexas.›× ƒ. ××  ×€€These€assets,€with€the€exception€of€the€jewelry,€were€returned€to€theÏprobate€court;€œin›€its€April€25,€1991,€order€denying€Verda€Hogueððs€petition€to€beÏnamed€executrix,€the€probate€court€stated€that€ð ðan€injunction€shall€issue€enjoiningÏall€heirs€and€interested€parties€from€disposition€of,€or€removing€from€thisÏjurisdiction€any€personal€property€belonging€to€the€deceased.ððÌÌà àAfter€this€initial€flurry€of€activity,€the€administration€of€Leigh€McGroryððsÏestate€languished€in€the€probate€court;€œwhen›€Kasper€McGrory€died€on€July€22,Ï1992,€no€assets€had€yet€been€distributed.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Kasper€left€a€will€in€which€heÍbequeathed€virtually€his€entire€estate€to€the€Catholic€Diocese€of€Memphis;€heÏalso€named€Hubert€McBride€as€executor€of€the€will.€€McBride,€in€turn,€hiredÏattorney€James€Bland€to€represent€Kasperððs€estate.€ÌÌà àIn€the€fall€of€œ1993,›€James€Kleiser,€the€chief€financial€officer€of€the€MemphisÏDiocese,€expressed€concern€about€the€fact€that€the€administration€of€LeighÏMcGroryððs€estate€was€not€still€complete,€and€that€Kasperððs€estate€had€receivedÏnothing€therefrom.€€After€conferring€with€Bland,€Kleiser€decided€that€it€would€beÏpreferable€to€relieve€White€of€his€representation€of€Kasperððs€interest€in€LeighððsÏestate.€€œBland,›€œthus,›€wrote€White€a€letter€on€October€27,€1992,€informing€him€ofÏthe€decision.€€In€this€letter,€Bland€offered€to€pay€White€a€reasonable€fee€for€hisÏprior€representation€of€Kasperððs€interest€in€Leighððs€estate.€ÌÌà àWhite€refused€to€accept€this€proposal,€citing€his€February€28,€1991,Ïcontingency€fee€contract€with€Kasper.€€œThereafter,€Kasperððs›€estate€€filed€a€petitionÍto€substitute€Bland€as€counsel€and€for€approval€of€attorneyððs€fees,€which€WhiteÏopposed.€€On€January€25,€1993,€the€probate€court€entered€an€order€substitutingÏcounsel;€it€also€set€a€hearing€for€March€2,€1993,€for€a€determination€of€aÏreasonable€fee€due€White.ÌÌà àBefore€the€hearing€was€held,€however,€White€filed€a€claim€againstÏKasperððs€estate€for€$108,291.00;€this€figure€represented€approximately€one„thirdÏof€$349,000,€the€amount€of€Leighððs€estate€to€which€Kasper€was€entitled€by€law.€ÏMcBride€filed€an€exception€to€this€claim,€alleging€that€the€claimed€fee€was€ð ðclearlyÏexcessiveðð€under€DR€2„106€and€œwas,›€œtherefore,›€unenforceable.ÌÌà àAfter€hearing€evidence€on€these€issues,€including€the€testimony€of€twoÏformer€probate€judges€and€Whiteððs€sworn€statement€as€to€the€amount€of€time€heÏhad€expended€on€the€case,€the€probate€court€filed€a€memorandum€opinion€inÏJanuary€1994.€€In€this€opinion,€the€probate€court€held€that€the€fee€sought€to€beÏcharged€by€White€violated€DR€2„106.€€It€reasoned€as€follows:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àThere€is€no€proof€in€this€record€that€there€was€ever€any€doubt€thatÏMr.€McGrory€was€Ruby€Leigh€McGroryððs€surviving€spouse€and€anÏheir€at€law,€and€therefore€entitled€to,€at€a€minimum,€1/3€of€his€wifeððsÏestate.€€The€record€reflects€no€will€contest,€no€issue€raised€as€to€Mr.ÏMcGrory€being€the€surviving€spouse€and€no€other€suit€or€challengeÏof€any€kind€in€this€matter€undertaken€or€defended€by€Mr.€White.€ÏTherefore,€the€only€genuine€contingency€involved€was€how€large€aÏdisbursement€Mr.€McGrory€would€ultimately€receive€by€operation€ofÏlaw.ÌÌà8 à[White]€in€support€of€his€fee€request€points€to€the€fact€that€he€had€toÏresist€the€efforts€of€Mrs.€McGroryððs€relatives€to€take€her€assets€toÏTexas.€€Mr.€Allison€testified€that€Mr.€White€was€instrumental€inÏhelping€him€get€those€assets€returned€to€Memphis.€€Although€Mr.ÏWhite€did€help€get€those€assets€back,€there€was€never€any€doubtÏthat€these€assets€belonged€to€Mrs.€McGroryððs€estate€and€it€was€inÏthe€power€of€this€court€to€order€them€to€be€returned.ÌÌà8 à...ÌÌà8 à[White€also]€defends€his€contingent€fee€contract€by€claiming€that€Mr.ÏMcGrory€was€fully€advised€of€the€situation€when€he€entered€into€theÏsubject€contract.€€The€fact€that€an€attorney€fully€informs€his€client€ofÏthe€contingent€fee€contract€and€its€implications€does€not€validate€it.€ÏThe€court€in€òòFlorida€Bar€v.€Moriberóó,€314€So.€2d€145,€149€(Fla.€1975),Ïfaced€a€similar€defense€and€stated€ððeven€if€we€presume€that€theÏclient€were€an€educated,€experienced€party€dealing€at€armððs€lengthÏwith€Respondent,€it€is€our€view€that€an€attorney€may€still€beÏdisciplined€for€overreaching€when€fees€charged€are€grosslyÏdisproportionate€to€the€services€rendered.ðð€€In€the€instant€case€evenÏif€Mr.€White€fully€explained€the€contingent€fee€contract€to€Mr.ÏMcGrory,€it€does€not€validate€the€agreement€in€this€case.€€It€is€quiteÍpossible€that€Mr.€McGrory€did€not€fully€understand€the€matter€andÏhad€no€idea€what€other€attorneys€in€the€area€would€charge€forÏsimilar€services€to€obtain€his€legal€share€of€his€wifeððs€estate,€whichÏhe€would€have€received€by€operation€of€law.€€The€duty€mustÏtherefore€be€placed€on€the€attorney€to€deal€fairly€and€in€good€faithÏwith€his€clients€in€setting€fees.€ÌÌà8 à...€The€court€finds€and€so€holds€that€the€fee€sought€to€be€charged€byÏ[White],€under€said€contract,€was€grossly€disproportionate€to€theÏservices€he€rendered.€€The€court€further€finds€that€the€fee€sought€byÏ[White]€under€said€agreement€was€clearly€excessive€andÏunreasonable,€and€the€court€therefore€holds€that€the€subjectÏcontingent€fee€contract€was€in€violation€of€Disciplinary€Rule€2„106(a)€and€said€contract€was€unenforceable.€€Therefore,€[White]Ïcannot€recover€under€it.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAlthough€it€rejected€Whiteððs€claim€pursuant€to€the€fee€contract,€the€probateÏcourt€went€on€to€note€that€Tennessee€law€permits€a€recovery€under€the€theory€ofÏòòquantum€meruitóó€even€if€a€fee€contract€œwere›€unenforceable.€€Believing€that€it€wasÏrequired€to€award€a€fee€based€on€òòquantum€meruitóó,€the€probate€court€multipliedÏWhiteððs€time€on€the€case,€approximately€114€hours,€by€$150€per€hour€„„€a€rateÍestablished€by€expert€testimony€as€the€maximum€allowable€for€probate€matters.œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€ÏAfter€making€some€minor€deductions,€the€probate€court€set€the€fee€at€$12,500.œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›€€ÌÌà àWhite€then€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,€which€affirmed€the€judgment.€ÏWe€granted€review€in€this€case€to€decide€whether€the€fee€contract€violated€DR€2„106;€and€if€so,€whether€White€is€entitled€to€recover€under€the€theory€of€òòquantumÏmeruitóó.ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓIó óóó.€€ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€first€issue€for€our€consideration€is€whether€the€contingency€feeÏcontract€œitself›€and€the€subsequent€attempt€to€enforce€that€œcontract›€contravenedÏDR€2„106.€€That€rule€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(A)€A€lawyer€shall€not€enter€into€an€agreement€for,€charge,€orÏattempt€to€collect€an€illegal€or€clearly€excessive€fee.ÌÌà8 à(B)€A€fee€is€clearly€excessive€when,€after€a€review€of€the€facts,€aÏlawyer€of€ordinary€prudence€would€be€left€with€a€definite€and€firmÏconviction€that€the€fee€is€in€excess€of€a€reasonable€fee.€€Factors€toÏbe€considered€as€guides€in€determining€the€reasonableness€of€aÏfee€include€the€following:à8 àÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)€The€time€and€labor€required,€the€novelty€andÏdifficulty€of€the€questions€involved,€and€the€skillÏrequisite€to€perform€the€legal€service€properly.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€The€likelihood,€if€apparent€to€the€client,€that€theÏacceptance€of€the€particular€employment€will€precludeÏother€employment€by€the€lawyer.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€The€fee€customarily€charged€in€the€locality€forÏsimilar€legal€services.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€The€amount€involved€and€the€results€obtained.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€The€time€limitations€imposed€by€the€client€or€by€theÏcircumstances.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€The€nature€and€length€of€the€professionalÏrelationship€with€the€client.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€The€experience,€reputation,€and€ability€of€theÏlawyer€or€lawyers€performing€the€services.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(8)€Whether€the€fee€is€fixed€or€contingent.ÌÌà8 à(C)€A€lawyer€shall€not€enter€into€an€arrangement€for,€charge,€orÏcollect€a€contingent€fee€for€representing€a€defendant€in€a€criminalÏcase.ÌÌÌÌÓÓAlthough€these€factors€are€to€be€used€as€guides,€òòConnors€v.€Connorsóó,€594ÏS.W.2d€672,€676€(Tenn.€1980),€ultimately€the€reasonableness€of€the€fee€mustÏdepend€upon€the€particular€circumstances€of€the€individual€case.€€òòHail€v.ÏNashville€Trust€Coóó.,€31€Tenn.€App.€39,€212€S.W.2d€51€(1948).€à àÌÌà àWhite€begins€his€argument€by€pointing€out€œthat€contingent›€fee€œcontracts›Ïare€not€explicitly€prohibited€by€DR€œ2„106€even€though€they€may€not€be€the€normÏin€probate€matters.›€€Similarly,€he€also€notes€that€a€fee€contract€for€one„third€of€aÍrecovery€€is€not,€in€and€of€itself,€impermissible.€€Having€set€forth€theseÏpropositions,€with€which€we€have€no€quarrel,€he€proceeds€to€attack€two€of€theÏprobate€courtððs€findings:€(1)€that€the€one„third€percentage€was€excessive€underÏthe€circumstances€of€the€case;€(2)€and€that€there€was€no€true€contingency€in€theÏcase.€€White€argues€that€the€one„third€percentage€was€not€excessive€because,€atÏthe€time€he€entered€the€contract,€he€had€no€idea€as€to€the€size€of€Leigh€McGroryððsÏestate.€€This€œfact€is›€important,€he€says,€because€if€the€estate€had€turned€out€to€beÏsmaller,€a€one„third€fee€would€have€been€proper.€€As€to€the€second€finding,€WhiteÏargues€that€a€contingency€œwas,›€in€œfact,›€present€because€Leighððs€relatives€hadÏremoved€her€assets€to€Texas,€and€it€was€unclear€whether€these€assets€could€beÏrecovered.€€White€concludes€that€this€risk€of€nonrecovery€constituted€aÏcontingency,€thereby€justifying€the€fee€contract.€ÌÌà àWe€find€both€these€arguments€unconvincing.€€With€regard€to€the€first€point,Ïit€is€true€that€at€the€time€White€entered€the€fee€contract€with€Kasper,€the€value€ofÏcertain€of€Leighððs€assets€„„€namely€the€Texas€real€estate€and€the€jewelry€„„€wasÏnot€known,€and€thus€the€exact€value€of€her€estate€was€uncertain.€€However,€thisÍfact€does€not€justify€the€one„third€percentage.€€As€mentioned€above,€White€wasÏsupplied€with€an€inventory€of€the€contents€of€Leighððs€safe€shortly€before€herÏdeath.€€This€inventory€reveals€that€Leigh€owned€stock€in€no€less€than€twentyÏdifferent€companies,€and€it€gives€the€identification€numbers€of€the€shares.€ÏTherefore,€White€should€have€suspected€that€he€was€dealing€with€a€sizeableÏestate;€and€a€cursory€investigation€of€the€market€prices€of€the€listed€stock€wouldÏhave€confirmed€œthis€fact.›€€Thus,€we€must€reject€Whiteððs€contention€that€he€hadÏabsolutely€no€knowledge€of€the€size€of€the€estate€when€he€entered€the€feeÏcontract.€€ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€second€point,€we€agree€with€the€probate€courtððsÏassessment€of€the€situation:€even€if€the€relatives€had€removed€the€assets€toÏTexas,€Kasperððs€interest€in€them€was€beyond€dispute,€and€it€was€completelyÏwithin€the€power€of€the€probate€court€to€demand€that€they€be€returned.à à€WhileÏthis€œfact€is›€enough€to€defeat€Whiteððs€argument,€we€note€that€it€is€flawed€in€anotherÏway.€€Whiteððs€argument€necessarily€presupposes€that€he€was€aware,€at€the€timeÏthat€he€entered€into€the€contract,€that€a€risk€of€nonrecovery€was€present:€in€otherÍwords,€the€argument€presupposes€that€White€already€knew,€as€of€February€28,Ï1991,€that€Roma€Anglin€had€taken€the€assets€to€Texas€and€might€not€return€them.€ÏThe€record,€however,€belies€this€assertion.€€In€the€petition€to€open€Leighððs€estate,Ïfiled€on€March€8,€1991,€one€week€after€the€contract€was€œfinalized,›€WhiteÏdemanded€that€First€Tennessee€Bank€show€cause€as€to€why€it€had€not€turnedÏover€the€contents€of€the€safe€deposit€box.€€However,€in€this€same€petition€WhiteÏdemanded€only€that€Roma€Anglin€surrender€Leighððs€holographic€will€to€the€court.€ÏThe€inescapable€conclusion€to€be€drawn€from€this€œsituation€is›€that€White€did€notÏknow,€at€the€time€the€contract€was€œfinalized,›€that€Roma€had€removed€the€òòassetsóóÏfrom€the€First€Tennessee€box€and€taken€them€to€Texas.€€Once€this€œfact€is›€madeÏclear,€Whiteððs€argument€rings€quite€hollow€indeed.€ÌÌ€à àHaving€rejected€Whiteððs€proferred€justification€of€the€fee€contract,€we€haveÏno€doubt€that€the€probate€court€was€correct€in€holding€that€the€fee€contractÏviolated€DR€2„106.€€Although€this€estate€matter€was€not€œwithout€problems,›€it€was,Ïin€the€scheme€of€things,€not€terribly€complicated€or€novel.€€Certainly€it€did€notÏrequire€any€special€skill€or€expertise,€DR€2„106(B)(1),€and€White€does€not€holdÍhimself€out€as€a€probate€specialist,€worthy€of€an€extraordinarily€high€fee.€€DR€2„106(B)(7).€€There€is€no€indication€that€this€matter€prohibited€White€fromÏundertaking€other€employment.€€DR€2„106(B)(2).€€Furthermore,€the€resultsÏobtained€by€White€were€not€particularly€good,€DR€2„106(B)(4),€as€Kasper€hadÏreceived€nothing€from€Leighððs€estate€as€of€the€date€of€his€death.€Finally,€and€mostÏdramatically,€we€note€that€if€White€were€to€be€paid€in€accordance€with€the€feeÏcontract,€he€would€have€earned€approximately€$950€per€hour.€€This€figure€isÏgrossly€in€excess€of€the€$150€hourly€rate,€which,€judging€from€the€expertÏtestimony,€we€consider€to€be€at€the€upper€end€of€ð ðthe€fee€customarily€charged€inÏthe€locality€for€similar€legal€œservices.ð𛀀DR€2„106(B)(3).€€€€Ìà àÌà àBecause€we€agree€that€the€fee€sought€to€be€charged€was€clearlyÏexcessive€under€DR€2„106,€we€therefore€affirm€the€probate€courtððs€holding€on€thisÏissue.œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓIIó óóó.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€next€issue€for€our€consideration€is€whether€White€may€recover€fees€onÏa€òòquantum€meruitóó€œbasis›€despite€the€fact€that€the€fee€contract€is€violative€of€DR€2„106€œand,›€œthus,›€unenforceable.€€White€argues€that€settled€Tennessee€law€providesÏthat€an€attorney€may€recover€fees€on€the€theory€of€òòquantum€œmeruitóó›€even€if€the€feeÏcontract€itself€is€determined€to€be€unenforceable.€€He€cites€three€cases€in€supportÏof€this€proposition:€òòPlanterððs€Bank€v.€Hornbergeróó,€44€Tenn.€(4€Cold.)€531€(1867);ÏòòCooper€&€Keys€v.€Bellóó,€127€Tenn.€142,€153€S.W.€844€(1912);€and€òòCummings€v.ÏPattersonóó,€59€Tenn.€App.€536,€442€S.W.2d€640€(1968).€ÌÌà àThe€estate,€for€its€part,€concedes€that€Tennessee€law€does€sanction€aÏrecovery€in€òòquantum€meruitóó€even€if€the€fee€contract€œwere›€deemed€to€beÏunenforceable.€€However,€it€argues€that€this€rule€is€œflawed›€and€that€attorneys€whoÏattempt€to€charge€a€fee€that€is€clearly€excessive€under€the€disciplinary€rules€ofÏthis€court€should€not€be€permitted€to€recover€on€a€theory€of€òòquantum€meruitóó€if€thatÍfee€is€disallowed.€€To€allow€such€a€practice,€the€estate€contends,€encouragesÏunscrupulous€attorneys€to€try€and€exact€unreasonable€fees€from€their€clients,Ïconfident€that€they€will€receive€a€reasonable€amount€of€compensation€if€theirÏunethical€efforts€are€thwarted.ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€the€parties€are€correct€in€their€assessment€ofÏTennessee€case€law€on€this€point.€€These€decisions,€however,€have€been€almostÏentirely€devoid€of€any€supporting€rationale€for€the€rule.€€For€example,€inÏòòHornbergeróó€this€Court€invalidated€an€ambiguously€worded€contract€that€wouldÏhave€allowed€practically€unlimited€fees€to€be€collected€by€the€attorney.€€After€aÏvery€extensive€discussion€of€the€attorneyððs€duty€to€deal€fairly€with€the€œclient›€and€aÏvigorous€condemnation€of€the€fee€contract,€which€it€characterized€as€ð ðappallingððÏand€ð ðastonishing,ðð€òòHornbergeróó,€44€Tenn.€at€575,€the€court€concluded,€without€anyÏdiscussion,€that€ð ðthe€recovery€of€the€attorney€should€be€scaled€and€brought€toÏòòquantum€meruitóó.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€578.€€ÌÌà àSimilarly,€in€òòCooper€&€Keysóó€two€attorneys€attempted€to€collect€a€$2,500Ífee,€pursuant€to€a€vaguely€drafted€contingency€contract,€for€services€rendered€toÏthe€defendant€in€the€course€of€divorce€litigation.€€Noting€that€the€defendant€couldÏhave€had€the€services€of€another€very€reputable€attorney€for€$250,€one„tenth€ofÏthe€amount€demanded€by€the€plaintiffs,€this€Court€refused€to€enforce€the€contract,Ïreasoning€that:€€ÌÓÓà8 àThe€relationship€of€attorney€and€client€is€an€extremely€delicate€andÏfiduciary€one,€so€far€as€the€duty€of€the€attorney€toward€the€client€isÏconcerned.€€The€attorney€is€an€officer€of€the€courts€in€which€he€is€aÏpractitioner,€and€courts€jealously€hold€him€to€the€utmost€good€faithÏin€the€discharge€of€his€duty.€€This€is€true€where€his€advice€andÏdirection€are€required€in€dealings€between€his€client€and€a€thirdÏparty,€and€also€where€the€dealing€is€between€the€attorney€and€hisÏclient.ÌÌà8 à...€[W]here€an€attorney€deals€with€his€client€for€further€professionalÏservices,€and€the€contract€between€them€is€reduced€to€writing,€andÏthe€attorney€seeks€to€enforce€it,€he€must€show€that€the€client€fullyÏunderstood€its€meaning€and€effect,€and€that€each€of€themÏunderstood€it€in€the€same€sense;€otherwise€the€contract€cannot€beÏenforced.€€He€must€also€show€that€his€contract€is€just€andÏreasonable€and€free€from€all€exorbitancy€of€demand.ÌÌà8 à...ÌÌà8 àSuch€a€rule€tends€to€prevent,€in€a€measure€at€least,€such€unseemlyÏcontests€as€the€present€suit.€€Tested€under€the€above€rule,€theÏcontract€set€out€in€complainantsðð€bill€is€unenforceable.€€It€is,€upon€itsÏface,€unreasonable,€exorbitant,€and€improbable.€€It€calls€for€a€fee€outÍof€all€proportion€to€the€amount€and€value€of€the€service€rendered€....ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòCooper€&€Keysóó,€127€Tenn.€at€150„51,€153€S.W.€at€846„47€(citations€omitted.)€€ÌÌà àHowever,€as€in€òòHornbergeróó,€after€sharply€criticizing€the€contract€andÏholding€it€unenforceable,€the€court€summarily€concluded€that:€ÌÌÓÓà8 à...€[T]he€measure€of€the€complainantsðð€recovery€would€be€the€fairÏand€reasonable€value€of€the€services€rendered€by€them€to€theÏdefendant€in€the€divorce€suit,€not€upon€the€basis€of€the€contingentÏfee,€but€upon€the€basis€of€an€implied€agreement€to€pay€a€fair€andÏreasonable€fee,€and€the€balance€due,€if€any,€under€this€measure€ofÏrecovery€should€be€ascertained€as€an€issue€of€fact.€€ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€847.ÌÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€fact,€the€only€justification€for€the€rule€is€to€be€found€in€òòCummings€v.ÏPattersonóó,€where€the€Court€of€Appeals€considered€the€validity€of€a€fee€contractÏwhich€included€a€provision€prohibiting€€the€client€from€settling€the€case€withoutÏthe€attorneysðð€consent.€€Although€the€attorneys€admitted€that€such€provisionsÍwere€void€as€against€public€policy,€they€argued€that€they€did€not€know€that€theÏprovision€was€illegal€at€the€time€they€drafted€the€œcontract›€and€that€the€settlementÏprovision€was€severable€from€the€remainder€of€the€contract.€€The€defendant,€onÏthe€other€hand,€argued€that€the€attorneys€were€not€entitled€to€any€fee,€eitherÏunder€the€contract€or€òòquantum€meruitóó,€under€the€circumstances.€€The€Court€ofÏAppeals€rejected€both€arguments,€explaining€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€not€material€that€the€attorneys€at€that€time€were€unaware€of€thisÏrule€of€law.€€òòOn€the€other€hand,€we€consider€it€inequitable€andÏunjust€to€permit€the€client€to€profit€by€an€innocent€inclusion€of€thisÏobnoxious€provision€in€the€contract.€€We€conclude€that€theÏChancellor€rightly€refused€to€enforce€the€contract€and€rendered€aÏdecree€on€the€basis€of€quantum€meruitóó.ÌÌòòCummingsóó,€442€S.W.2d€at€643€(emphasis€added.)ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àTherefore,€whereas€òòHornbergeróó€and€òòCooper€&€Keysóó€contain€but€a€bareÏstatement€of€the€rule,€with€absolutely€no€supporting€rationale,€òòCummingsóó€reliesÏupon€the€principle€of€òòfairnessóó€to€support€an€award€of€fees€on€a€òòquantum€meruitóóÏbasis.€€The€òòCummingsóó€court€believed€that€attorneys€should€not€be€deprived€of€aÍreasonable€fee€when€their€fee€contracts,€although€violative€of€public€policy,€hadÏnevertheless€been€entered€into€in€an€innocent€manner.€€ÌÌà àThe€rule€fashioned€by€the€òòCummingsóó€court€is,€in€our€view,€completelyÏacceptable.€€We€agree€that€attorneys€should€not€be€penalized€for€innocentÏsnafus,€such€as€an€oversight€in€drafting€that€might€render€their€fee€contractsÏunenforceable.€€To€do€so€would€be€unfair€to€the€lawyer€who€had€otherwiseÏdiligently€pursued€the€clientððs€interests,€and€it€would€result€in€a€windfall€to€theÏclient€who€had€benefitted€from€these€services.€€Thus,€a€recovery€under€a€theory€ofÏòòquantum€meruitóó€is€warranted€in€these€situations.ÌÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion,€however,€that€an€attorney€who€enters€into€a€feeÏcontract,€or€attempts€to€collect€a€fee,€that€is€clearly€excessive€under€DR€2„106Ïshould€not€be€permitted€to€take€advantage€of€the€òòCummingsóó€rule.€€A€violation€ofÏDR€2„106€is€œan›€ethical€transgression€of€a€most€flagrant€œsort›€as€it€goes€directly€toÏthe€heart€of€the€fiduciary€relationship€that€exists€between€attorney€and€client.€€ToÏpermit€an€œattorney›€œto€fall€back€on€the€theory€of€òòquantumóó€òòmeruitó󛀜when€heÍunsuccessfully€fails€to€collect€a€clearly€excessive€fee€does€absolutely€nothing€toÏpromote€ethical€behavior.›€On€the€contrary,€œthis€interpretation€would€encourage›Ïattorneys€to€enter€exorbitant€fee€contracts,€secure€that€the€safety€net€of€òòquantumÏmeruitóó€is€there€in€case€of€a€subsequent€fall.€€ÌÌà àœWe›€œdo€not€agree›€with€Whiteððs€dire€prediction€that€this€holding€will€have€aÏchilling€effect€on€attorneysðð€willingness€to€enter€contingent€fee€contracts.€ÏœDisciplinary€Rule›€2„106€is€not€a€weapon€that€a€recalcitrant€client€can€employ€atÏwill€to€nullify€the€fee€œcontract›€and€thereby€escape€all€liability€for€legal€services.€ÏRather,€by€its€very€terms€the€rule€condemns€only€those€fees€that€a€lawyer€ofÏordinary€prudence€would€definitely€and€firmly€believe€to€be€œexcessive›€and€œsets›Ïforth€a€list€of€factors€to€determine€when€a€fee€is€reasonable.€€Because€of€the€highÏthreshold€embodied€in€the€rule,€we€are€confident€that€DR€2„106€will€serve€to€denyÏrecovery€only€to€those€who€truly€deserve€it.ÌÌà àHaving€so€concluded,€we€reverse€that€portion€of€the€lower€courtsððÏjudgment€awarding€fees€on€a€òòquantum€meruitóó€basis.€€Any€prior€authority€inÍconflict€with€this€opinion€is€hereby€expressly€overruled.ÌÓÓÌœ›à àà àà àà àà à______________________________________€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌœConcur:ÌÌBirch,›€œC.€J.ÌAnderson,›€Reid,€œWhite,€JJ.›