ÿWPC4! 8#  U:+ %e 0 (k4“§¶w@¾ 0ˆþ 0D†bÊ 0DÒ 0Jb` 0Th 0^¼ 0h 0r‚ 0|ô 0Dp 0†´ 0: 1uÊ 0d? AQ£ Æô Bº 0@× 0D D/[ BŠ D3§ U*Ú B) DC- AMp ½ 7Цĭrqv~ãvÓa˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ê‚_#tÔôÔô3|x  ùúûüýEþÿÓ€    (8(2R$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd!#/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€-ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€-XÔÌÌMarch€16,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó -Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€-ôÔð ðThe€Supreme€Court€may,€at€its€discretion,€answer€questions€of€law€certified€to€it€by€theÏSupreme€Court€of€the€United€States,€a€Court€of€Appeals€of€the€United€States,€a€District€Court€ofÏthe€United€States€in€Tennessee,€or€a€United€States€Bankruptcy€Court€in€Tennessee.€€This€ruleÏmay€be€invoked€when€the€certifying€court€determines€that,€in€a€proceeding€before€it,€there€areÏquestions€of€law€of€this€state€which€will€be€determinative€of€the€cause€and€as€to€which€it€appears€toÏthe€certifying€court€there€is€no€controlling€precedent€in€the€decisions€of€the€Supreme€Court€ofÏTennessee.ðð€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€23,€ðð1.Ì œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€-ôÔRelying€on€these€provisions,€the€Tennessee€Medical€Association,€proceeding€asÏòòamicusóó€òòcuriaeòòóó,€óóasserts€that€the€contingency€fee€contracts€used€for€medical€services€or€medical„legal€consulting€are€void€as€against€public€policy.Ô€-XÔ€€Ô€-ôÔIt€further€asserts€that€the€harm€in€such€contractsÏis€that€the€inherent€pecuniary€interest€diverts€the€physicianððs€attention€from€the€paramount€interestÏof€providing€quality€health€care.€Ì ºÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€-ôÔ€€We€note€that€a€few€commentators,€while€acknowledging€the€legitimate€public€policyÏgoals€of€the€majority€rule€against€contingency€fee€contracts€for€experts,€have€proposed€alternativeÏarrangements€based€on€the€competing€policy€of€providing€expert€services€for€litigants€who€mayÏnot€otherwise€be€able€to€afford€expert€services€.Ô€-XÔ€€òòÔ€-ôÔSeeóó€J.€Parker,€òòContingent€Expert€Witness€Fees:ÏAccess€and€Legitimacyóó,€64€S.€Cal.€L.€Rev.€1363€(1991)(proposing€contingency€fee€based€onÏhours€worked€rather€than€amount€of€plaintiffððs€recovery);€Note,€òòContingent€Fees€for€ExpertÏWitnesses€in€Civil€Litigationóó,€86€Yale€L.J.€1680€(1977)(proposing€extensive€court€supervision€ofÏcontingency€fee€contract).Ô€-XÔÌ hÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€-ôÔThe€Tennessee€Medical€Association,€proceeding€as€òòamicusóó€òòcuriaeóó,€agrees€that€aÏrecovery€under€quantum€meruit€is€not€appropriate€under€the€facts€of€this€case.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€îXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ€ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&ÓÙ€!ÙßR€01/A1-j|€` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÌœGREG›€SWAFFORD,€M.D.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœò òòòFiled:€€March€16,€1998ó ó›óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœPlaintiff/Appellee,›à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)à àCertified€Question€of€Lawà à›à à€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àœ)€€€€à àfrom€U.S.D.C.,€Western€›ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àœ)à àDistrict€of€Tennessee›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)›ÌROBERT€G.€ð ðGREGðð€HARRIS,€andà àœ)à à€Hon.€Jerome€Turner,›ÌDARRELL€R.€RYLAND,€à àà àà àœ)à à€€€€€U.S.D.C.€Judge›ÌIndividually€and€ð ðP.C.ðð,à àà àà àœ)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àœDefendants/Appellants.›à àà à)€€€€€€à àNo.€01S01„9612„FD„00248Ì̛̜ÌÌòòÌò òœFor›€œPlaintiff„Appellee:óó›à àà àà àòòFor€œDefendant„Appellant,€Harris:óóó ó›ÌœWilliam›€J.€Simmonsà àà àœà à›à àWilliam€L.€Bomarà àÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àœGLANKLER€BROWN,€PLLCÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,›€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àÌÌœà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFor€Defendant„Appellant,€Ryland:ó óóóÌ›à àà àà àà àà àà àGeorge€T.€Lewis,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBradley€E.€TrammellÌœà àà àà àà àà àà àBAKER,€DONELSON,€BEARMAN€&€à àà àà àà àà àà à€€ÏCALDWELLÌà à›à àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€Tennessee€ÌÌÌò òòòœFOR€AMICUS€CURIAE,à àà àà àFOR€AMICUS€CURIAE,ÏTENNESSEEÌTENNESSEE€MEDICALà àà àà àDEFENSE€LAWYERSÏASSOCIATION:ÌASSOCIATION:ó óóóà àà àà àà àDale€H.€TuttleÌMarc€E.€Overlockà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌNashville,€Tennessee›ÌÔ€-„Ôò òœÌÌ›à@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€-XƠ̜̂ÌÓ` °‚X˜XÓœÌÌÌ›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœANDERSON,›€C.J.ÇÓÓÑ€Ñà àThe€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Western€District€ofÏTennessee€has€certified€the€following€questions€to€this€Court€pursuant€to€RuleÏ23€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court× ƒ2 ××  ×:€€ÌÓÓÌà8 à1.à0 àWhether€a€contract€between€a€personal€injuryÏplaintiff€and€his€physician€to€pay€the€physicianÏa€fee€contingent€on€the€outcome€of€litigationÏfor€the€coordination€of€and€consultation€withÏrespect€to€the€medico/legal€aspects€of€theÏlawsuit,€including€potentially€the€giving€ofÏexpert€medical€testimony€at€trial,€isÏenforceable€under€the€laws€of€Tennessee;ÌÌà8 à2.à0 àWhether€a€contract€between€a€personal€injuryÏplaintiff€and€his€physician€to€pay€the€physicianÏa€fee€contingent€on€the€outcome€of€litigationÏfor€medical€services€and€treatment€(i.e.,€actualÏcare€and€treatment€for€the€injuries)€to€theÏplaintiff/patient€is€enforceable€under€the€lawsÏof€Tennessee;€and€ÌÌà8 à3.à0 àIf€either€or€both€of€the€above€contracts€areÏunenforceable,€whether€the€physician€mayÏrecover€on€a€quantum€meruit€theory€for€theÏexpert€and/or€medical€services.ÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€accepted€these€important€legal€questions€of€first€impressionÏunder€Rule€23€and,€in€response,€conclude€that€a€contract€requiring€a€party€toÍpay€a€physician€a€fee€for€medico„legal€expert€services€and/or€medical€treatmentÏthat€is€contingent€on€the€outcome€of€litigation€is€contrary€to€public€policy€in€thisÏstate€and€therefore€void.€€We€also€conclude€that€under€the€facts€of€this€case,Ïpayment€for€the€physicianððs€expert€services€and/or€medical€treatment€pursuantÏto€a€theory€of€quantum€meruit€is€not€appropriate.ÌÌÌà@ àò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àOn€June€21,€1990,€the€defendant,€Robert€G.€Harris,€a€resident€ofÏMississippi,€was€injured€in€an€automobile€accident€occurring€in€œLouisiana€andÏsubsequently€filed€a€lawsuit€against€several€defendants€in€connection€with€theÏaccident.€€Harris€went€to€the€plaintiff,€Dr.€Greg€Swafford€of€Memphis,€Tennessee,Ïfor€treatment€of€a€cold€and€his€injuries.€€ÌÌà àThe€injured€Harris€and€the€physician€Swafford€entered€into€twoÏcontractual€agreements.€€The€first€was€an€oral€agreement€between€Harris€andÏDr.€Swafford€whereby€Dr.€Swafford€would€act€as€medico/legal€consultant€andÏassist€with€the€preparation€of€Harrisððs€personal€injury€suit€in€return€for€15ð@ðÏpercent€of€any€monetary€recovery€received€by€Harris.€€The€agreement€wasÏreduced€to€writing€on€April€16,€1995.€ÌÌà àThe€second€agreement,€entitled€ð ðMedical€Reports€and€DoctorððsÏLien,ðð€was€entered€into€in€August€of€1994.€€This€agreement,€which€was€signedÏby€Harris€and€his€attorney,€Darrell€Ryland,€required€Ryland€to€pay€Dr.€SwaffordÏany€money€owed€to€him€for€medical€services€provided€to€Harris.€€ThisÏagreement,€according€to€the€District€Courtððs€order€of€certification,€was€notÏcontingent€on€the€outcome€of€the€personal€injury€litigation.ÌÌà àIn€preparation€for€the€trial,€Dr.€Swafford€testified€at€one€depositionÏrelating€to€Harrisððs€personal€injury€claim€and€also,€according€to€the€complaint,€Ïprovided€medical€consultation,€treatment,€and€services.€€When€Harrisððs€personalÏinjury€claim€settled€for€$625,000,€Dr.€Swafford€demanded€15ð@ð€percent€asÏprovided€in€the€first€contract.€€When€he€was€not€paid,€Dr.€Swafford€filed€suit€forÏbreach€of€contract€against€Harris€and€his€attorney€Ryland,€as€well€as€a€suit€forÏinducement€to€breach€a€contract€against€Ryland.€€€The€suit€was€subsequentlyÏremoved€to€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Western€District€ofÏTennessee.ÌÌà àThe€parties€dispute€the€nature€of€the€contractual€agreements.€ÏHarris€and€Attorney€Ryland€contend€that€the€agreement€for€medico„legalÏservices€was€a€contingency€fee€contract,€while€the€agreement€for€medicalÏtreatment€was€not€a€contingency€fee€contract.€€Dr.€Swafford,€on€the€other€hand,Ïargues€that€the€contingency€fee€contract€included€medico„legal€services€as€wellÍas€medical€treatment€services.€€€He€also€contends€that€if€the€contingency€feeÏcontract€is€unenforceable,€he€is€entitled€to€recovery€under€a€quantum€meruitÏtheory.€ÌÌà àThe€District€Court,€finding€that€a€response€to€the€questions€of€lawÏset€forth€above€would€ð ðsubstantially€disposeðð€of€the€case,€certified€the€questionsÏto€this€Court€pursuant€to€Rule€23€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€We€agreedÏto€review€these€important€questions€of€first€impression.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONTINGENCY€FEE€FOR€CONSULTING€AND€EXPERT€TESTIMONYó óóóÌà àThe€defendants,€Harris€and€his€attorney€Ryland,€relying€onÏextensive€authority€in€Tennessee€and€elsewhere,€contend€that€a€contingencyÏfee€contract€for€the€expert€services€of€a€physician€is€contrary€to€sound€publicÏpolicy€and€void.€€Dr.€Swafford,€although€not€challenging€this€authority,€contendsÏthat€ð ðat€the€time€of€contracting,€there€was€no€existing€law€in€Tennessee,€and€noÏguidelines€applicable€to€him,€which€[gave]€notice€[of]€any€public€policy€againstÏcontingency€fee€contracts.ðð€€ÌÌà àWe€begin€our€analysis€by€determining€whether€the€contingent€feeÏcontract€violated€existing€Tennessee€public€policy€and€if€so,€how€such€policyÏwas€established.€€ÌÌà àWe€first€examine€the€òòAmerican€Medical€Association€Code€ofÏEthicsóó,€ðð€6.01,€which€condemns€contingency€fees€for€the€provision€of€medicalÏservices:ÌÓÓòòÌà8 àContingent€Physician€Feesóó:€If€a€physicianððs€fee€forÏmedical€services€is€contingent€on€the€successfulÏoutcome€of€a€claim,€such€as€a€malpractice€orÏworkerððs€compensation€claim,€there€is€the€everÏpresent€danger€that€the€physician€may€become€lessÏof€a€healer€and€more€of€an€advocate€or€partisan€inÏthe€proceedings.€€Accordingly,€a€physicianððs€fee€forÏmedical€service€should€be€based€on€the€value€of€theÏservice€provided€by€the€physician€to€the€patient€andÏnot€on€the€uncertain€outcome€of€a€contingency€thatÏdoes€not€in€any€way€relate€to€the€value€of€the€medicalÏservice.ÌÌÌÓÓSimilarly,€although€the€Code€of€Ethics€recognizes€that€ð ðas€a€citizen€and€as€aÏprofessional€with€special€training€and€experience,€the€physician€has€an€ethicalÏobligation€to€assist€in€the€administration€of€justice,ðð€it€again€prohibits€the€use€of€aÏcontingency€fee€by€a€medical€witness:ÌÓÓÌà8 à[t]he€medical€witness€must€not€become€an€advocateÏor€a€partisan€in€the€legal€proceeding.€€The€medicalÏwitness€should€be€adequately€prepared€and€shouldÏtestify€honestly€and€truthfully.€€The€attorney€for€theÏparty€who€calls€the€physician€as€a€witness€should€beÏinformed€of€all€favorable€and€unfavorable€informationÏdeveloped€by€the€physicianððs€evaluation€of€the€case.€ÏòòIt€is€unethical€for€a€physician€to€accept€compensationÏthat€is€contingent€upon€the€outcome€of€litigationóó.ÌÌÌòòAmerican€Medical€Association€Code€of€Ethicsóó,€ðð€9.07€(emphasis€added).€ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€AMA€Code€has€been€adopted€as€a€regulatory€policy€by€theÏTennessee€Board€of€Medical€Examiners,€the€Tennessee€statutory€agencyÏcharged€with€the€licensing€and€supervision€of€physicians€in€this€jurisdiction.€ÏThe€Board€of€Medical€Examiners€has€the€statutory€responsibility€and€authority€toÏdeny,€suspend,€or€revoke€a€license€for,€among€other€things,€ð ðunprofessional,Ïdishonorable€or€unethical€conduct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð63„6„214(b)(1)(1997).× ƒ3 ××  ×€€ÏAccordingly,€a€violation€of€the€AMA€Code€constitutes€unprofessional€conductÏand€violates€public€policy€established€by€the€Tennessee€Board€of€MedicalÏExaminers.ÌÌà àThe€Supreme€Court,€under€its€inherent€and€statutory€authority,Ïgoverns€the€admission€and€discipline€of€attorneys€in€this€State.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,ÏòòDockery€v.€Bd.€of€Professional€Responsibilityóó,€937€S.W.2d€863€(Tenn.€1996).€ÏThe€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility€and€Disciplinary€Rules€governing€theÏconduct€of€attorneys€are€a€part€of€the€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court.€€Tenn.€Sup.ÏCt.€R.€8.€€Disciplinary€Rule€7„109(C)€of€the€Code€of€Professional€ResponsibilityÏprovides€that€a€lawyer€ð ðshall€not€pay,€offer€to€pay,€or€acquiesce€in€the€paymentÍof€compensation€to€a€witness€òòcontingent€upon€the€content€of€the€witnessððsÏtestimony€or€the€outcome€of€a€caseóó.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€Similarly,€ethicalÏconsideration€7„28€provides:ÌÓÓÌà8 àWitnesses€should€always€testify€truthfully€and€shouldÏbe€free€from€any€financial€inducements€hat€mightÏtempt€them€to€do€otherwise.€€A€lawyer€should€not€payÏor€agree€to€pay€a€non„expert€witness€an€amount€inÏexcess€of€reimbursement€for€expenses€and€financialÏloss€incident€to€being€a€witness;€however,€a€lawyerÏmay€pay€or€agree€to€pay€an€expert€witness€aÏreasonable€fee€for€services€as€an€expert.€€òòBut€in€noÏevent€should€a€lawyer€pay€or€agree€to€pay€aÏcontingent€fee€to€any€witnessóó.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓÌ(Emphasis€added).€€In€our€view,€these€provisions€of€the€Code€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility,€promulgated€by€the€Supreme€Court€and€authorized€by€theÏTennessee€Constitution€and€statutes,€reflect€public€policy,€€just€as€it€is€reflectedÏin€the€òòAmerican€Medical€Association€Code€of€Ethicsóó.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSpiegel€v.ÏThomas,€Mann€&€Smith,€P.C.óó,€811€S.W.2d€528,€531€(Tenn.€1991)(holding€that€aÏcontract€which€violated€sections€of€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility€wasÏð ðvoid€as€against€the€public€policy€of€Tennessee.ðð).€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€medical€and€legal€communities€share€the€ethicalÏprohibition€against€the€use€of€contingency€fees€for€expert€witnesses€which€is€Ïcontained€in€the€respective€professional€codes€for€each€profession€and€adoptedÍby€the€State€as€the€public€policy€of€Tennessee.€€This€public€policy€is€re„enforcedÏby€the€actions€of€the€Tennessee€Bar€Association€and€the€Tennessee€MedicalÏAssociation€in€adopting€the€Interprofessional€Code€of€Cooperation,€whichÏprovides€in€part€that€ð ð[u]nder€no€circumstances€may€a€physician€charge€orÏaccept€compensation€for€any€service€which€is€contingent€upon€the€outcome€of€aÏlawsuit.ðð€€Article€VI,€ðð2.ÌÌà àCourts€from€other€jurisdictions€have€likewise€relied€uponÏprofessional€codes€in€concluding€that€contingency€fees€for€expert€medicalÏwitnesses€are€unenforceable€as€against€sound€public€policy.€€For€example,€inÏòòDupree€v.€Malpractice€Research,€Inc.óó,€445€N.W.2d€498€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1989),Ïcontracts€were€executed€whereby€the€defendant,€Malpractice€Research,€Inc.,Ïprovided€expert€testimony€and€advice€in€connection€with€the€plaintiffððs€medicalÏmalpractice€action€in€exchange€for€payment€of€costs€and€20%€of€the€plaintiffððsÏrecovery.€€The€Court€of€Appeals,€citing€professional€codes€in€the€medical€andÏlegal€professions,€ruled€that€the€contracts€were€against€public€policy€becauseÏthey€ð ðthreaten[ed]€the€legitimate€recoveries€of€injured€plaintiffsðð€and€ð ðimperil[ed]Ïdefendants€and€the€fundamental€truth„seeking€mission€of€our€court€system.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ïat€502.€€The€Court€also€reasoned:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€[expertððs]€interest€in€the€amount€of€the€damagesÏfurnished€a€powerful€motive€for€exaggeration,Ïsuppression,€and€misrepresentation,€a€temptation€toÏswell€the€damages€so€likely€to€color€his€testimony€asÍto€be€inimical€to€the€pure€administration€of€justice,Ïand€therefore€invalid.ÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€(quoting,€òòSherman€v.€Burtonóó,€165€Mich.€293,€130€N.W.€667€(1911)).ÌÌà àIn€a€New€Jersey€case,€òòPolo€v.€Gotchelóó,€225€N.J.€Super€429,€542ÏA.2d€947€(1987),€the€plaintiffs€contracted€with€a€ð ðmedical„legal€consultingÏserviceðð€that€was€to€locate€medical€experts€to€provide€opinions€and€testimony€asÏto€medical€aspects€of€the€plaintiffððs€malpractice€suit.€€In€return,€the€defendantÏwas€to€receive€a€contingency€fee€of€6€percent€of€the€plaintiffððs€gross€recovery.€€InÏdeciding€the€enforceability€of€the€contract,€the€New€Jersey€Supreme€CourtÏconsidered€the€AMA€Code€of€Ethics€provisions€that€condemn€contingency€fees,Ïa€New€Jersey€statute€that€prohibited€the€use€of€contingency€fees€by€physicians,Ïand€sections€of€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility€that€prohibit€an€attorneyÏfrom€sharing€a€contingency€fee€with€a€non„lawyer.€€After€observing€that€the€6Ïpercent€fee€invaded€the€plaintiffððs€right€of€recovery€and€that€the€defendantððsÏservice€would€not€exist€but€for€the€participation€of€doctors,€the€Court€concludedÏthat€the€contract€was€void€as€against€public€policy.€€òòIdóó.€at€948„49.ÌÌà àSimilar€public€policy€concerns€have€been€emphasized€by€courtsÏand€commentators€with€regard€to€contingency€fee€contracts€with€other€types€ofÏexperts€as€well.€€For€example,€in€òòBelfonte€v.€Milleróó,€212€Pa.€Super.€508,€243ÍA.2d€150€(1968),€the€court€invalidated€a€10€percent€contingency€fee€for€theÏservices€of€a€real€estate€appraiser,€stating€that€ð ðimproper€conduct€or€bias€can€beÏpredicted€easily€when€the€compensation€of€the€witness€is€directly€related€to€theÏabsolute€amount€of€an€award€which€may€in€turn€be€dependent€to€a€great€degreeÏon€the€testimony€of€that€same€witness.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€153;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòNew€EnglandÏTelephone€and€Telegraph€Co.€v.€Board€of€Assessorsóó,€392€Mass.€865,€468ÏN.E.2d€263,€265€(1984)(ð ðthe€majority€rule€in€this€country€is€that€an€expertÏwitness€may€not€collect€compensation€which€by€agreement€was€contingent€onÏthe€outcome€of€the€controversy.ðð);€Restatement€of€Contracts€ðð552(2)(ð ða€bargainÏto€pay€an€expert€witness€for€testifying€to€his€opinion.€.€.€is€illegal.€.€.if€the€agreedÏcompensation€is€contingent€on€the€outcome€of€the€controversy.ðð);€òòcf.óó€òòœOjeda›€v.ÏSharp€Cabrillo€Hospitalóó,€8€Cal.€App.€4th€1,€10€Cal.€Rptr.€2d€230Ï(1992)(contingency€fee€contract€with€medical€consulting€service€not€òòperóó€òòseóóÏvoid).× ƒ4 ××  ×ÌÌà àGiven€this€overwhelming€weight€of€authority,€we€disagree€with€Dr.ÏSwaffordððs€contention€that€no€controlling€public€policy€existed€or€that€the€publicÍpolicy€was€not€applicable€simply€because€he€is€not€a€member€of€the€AmericanÏor€Tennessee€Medical€Associations.€€On€the€contrary,€it€is€our€view€that€soundÏpublic€policy€in€this€jurisdiction,€as€in€others,€is€crystal€clear:€€a€contingency€feeÏcontract€for€the€services€of€a€physician€acting€in€a€medico„legal€expert€capacityÏis€void€as€against€public€policy€and€therefore€unenforceable.€€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONTINGENCY€FEE€FOR€MEDICAL€TREATMENTóóÌó óà àMuch€of€the€foregoing€authority€and€discussion€is€pertinent€to€theÏissue€of€a€contingency€fee€for€medical€treatment€as€well.€€In€particular,€theÏòòAmerican€Medical€Association€Code€of€Ethicsóó,€ðð6.01,€emphasizing€ð ðthe€everÏpresent€danger€that€the€physician€may€become€less€of€a€healer€and€more€of€anÏadvocate€or€partisan,ðð€states€that€a€ð ðphysicianððs€fee€for€medical€services€shouldÏbe€based€on€the€value€of€the€service€provided€by€the€physician€to€the€patientÏand€not€on€the€uncertain€outcome€of€a€contingency€that€does€not€in€any€wayÏrelate€to€the€value€of€the€medical€service.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€prohibition€in€the€òòAmerican€Medical€Association€Code€ofÏEthicsóó,€which€has€been€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Board€of€Medical€Examiners,Ïis€a€clear€reflection€of€public€policy.€€€As€the€New€Jersey€Supreme€Court€said€inÏòòPolo€v.€Gotchelóó,€òòsupraóó,ÌÓÓÌà8 àSection€8.04€.€.€.€€òòThis€section€clearly€enunciates€theÏpublic€policy€that€doctorððs€fees€should€not€be€basedÏon€an€uncertain€outcome€of€a€contingency,€theÏunderlying€public€policy€being€the€danger€of€theÏphysician€becoming€more€of€an€advocate€and€less€ofÏa€healeróó.€€A€doctorððs€fee€should€be€calculated€only€onÏthe€value€of€the€medical€services€provided,€inÏaccordance€with€accepted€standards€of€fee€paymentÏfor€services€rendered.ÌÌÌÓÓ542€A.2d€at€948€(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àThe€same€public€policy€is€contained€in€the€Interprofessional€CodeÏof€Cooperation€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Medical€Association€and€theÏTennessee€Bar€Association,€which€states€that€under€no€circumstances€may€aÏphysician€receive€a€contingency€fee€ð ðfor€any€service.ðð€€Article€VI,€ðð€2.€€SimplyÏput,€contingency€fees€for€medical€services€not€only€imperil€the€sanctity€of€theÏdoctor/patient€relationship€but€also€create€the€potential€that€pecuniary€interestsÏmay€influence€professional€judgment.ò òÌÌó óà àIn€this€case€the€contracts€indicate€that€the€parties€contemplated€theÏlegal€action€and€also€Dr.€Swaffordððs€role€in€the€proceedings.€€With€the€financialÏincentives€already€in€place,€it€is€immaterial€whether€the€contingency€fee€contractÏwas€for€medico„legal€expert€services€and/or€for€medical€treatment.€€Under€theÏauthority€discussed€above,€a€contingency€fee€for€either€is€against€sound€publicÏpolicy€and€therefore€void€and€unenforceable.ÌÌà@ àò òòòQUANTUM€MERUITó óóóÌà àWe€turn€to€the€third€and€final€question€certified€for€our€review.€Dr.ÏSwafford€contends€that€if€contingency€fee€contracts€for€the€services€of€aÏphysician€are€unenforceable,€he€is€entitled€to€receive€payment€for€the€servicesÏrendered€under€a€theory€of€quantum€meruit.€€The€defendants,€Harris€and€hisÏattorney€Ryland,€argue€that€a€quantum€meruit€recovery€is€not€appropriate€whereÏthe€underlying€contract€is€void€as€against€public€policy.× ƒ5 ××  ×€ÌÌà àA€quantum€meruit€action€is€an€equitable€substitute€for€a€contractÏclaim€pursuant€to€which€a€party€may€recover€the€reasonable€value€of€goods€andÏservices€provided€to€another€if€the€following€circumstances€are€shown:ÌÓÓÌà8 à1.à8 àThere€is€no€existing,€enforceableÏcontract€between€the€parties€coveringÏthe€same€subject€matter;ÌÌà8 à2.à8 àThe€party€seeking€recovery€proves€thatÏit€provided€valuable€goods€or€services;ÌÌà8 à3.à8 àThe€party€to€be€charged€received€theÏgoods€or€services;ÌÌà8 à4.€à8 àThe€circumstances€indicate€that€theÏparties€to€the€transaction€should€haveÏreasonably€understood€that€the€personÍproviding€the€goods€or€servicesÏexpected€to€be€compensated;€and€ÌÌà8 à5.à8 àThe€circumstances€demonstrate€that€itÏwould€be€unjust€for€a€party€to€retain€theÏgoods€or€services€without€payment.ÌÌÌÓÓòòCastelli€v.€Lienóó,€910€S.W.2d€420,€427€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòPaschallððs,€Inc.Ïv.€Dozieróó,€219€Tenn.€45,€54,€407€S.W.2d€150,€154€(1966).ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€the€first€factor,€we€observe€that€the€parties€disputeÏthe€scope€of€the€contingency€fee€contract.€€Harris€and€Attorney€Ryland€contend€itÏwas€solely€for€medico„legal€expert€services€and€that€a€separate,€non„contingency€fee€agreement€existed€for€the€medical€treatment.€€Dr.€Swafford,€onÏthe€other€hand,€contends€that€the€contingency€fee€contract€included€expertÏservices€and€medical€treatment€and€that,€if€void,€he€is€entitled€to€quantum€meruitÏrecovery€for€both.€ÌÌà àWe€need€not€dwell€on€this€factual€dispute€because€our€decisionÏwith€respect€to€recovery€under€quantum€meruit€rests€principally€upon€the€fifthÏfactor.€€Although€we€have€not€addressed€this€issue€before€under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€have€held€on€at€least€one€prior€occasion€that€quantum€meruitÏwas€not€available€where€the€underlying€contract€was€found€void€as€againstÏpublic€policy.€€For€example,€in€òòWhite€v.€McBrideóó,€937€S.W.2d€796€(Tenn.€1996),Ía€contract€provided€that€an€attorney€would€receive€a€contingency€fee€plus€aÏ$2,500€retainer.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€contingency€fee€was€clearlyÏexcessive€in€relation€to€the€work€performed€by€the€attorney€in€violation€of€CodeÏof€Professional€Responsibility,€Disciplinary€Rule€2„106,€but€awarded€theÏattorney€$12,500€based€on€quantum€meruit.€€We€held€that€although€attorneysÏshould€not€be€unfairly€penalized€for€innocent€errors€in€drafting€that€might€renderÏa€contract€unenforceable,€the€violation€of€Disciplinary€Rule€2„106€was€ð ðanÏethical€transgression€of€the€most€flagrant€sort€as€it€goes€to€the€heart€of€theÏfiduciary€relationship€that€exists€between€attorney€and€client.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€803.€€WeÏtherefore€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€quantum€meruit.€ÌÌà àThe€Michigan€Court€of€Appeals€reached€a€similar€conclusion€withÏrespect€to€a€contingency€fee€contract€for€physician€services€in€òòDupreeóó,€òòsupraóó.ÏAfter€holding€that€the€contingency€fee€contract€was€void€as€against€public€policy,€Ïthe€court€said:ÌÓÓÌà8 àWhile€it€is€not€necessarily€the€case€that€quantumÏmeruit€is€an€inappropriate€consideration€where€theÏunderlying€contract€is€void€as€against€public€policy,Ïwhere€a€contract€violates€strong,€established€publicÏpolicies€quantum€meruit€will€not€be€given€in€aid€of€orÏto€encourage€unprofessional€conduct€infringing€theÏintegrity€of€judicial€proceedings.€òòIn€this€case,€we€findÏcontingent€fee€contracts€of€the€type€at€issue€soÏrepugnant€to€established.€.€.public€policy,€asÏexpressed€by€statutes,€court€rules,€and€courtÏopinions,€that€to€permit€recovery€on€a€quantum€meruitÍbasis€would€defeat€or€subvert€those€policies€andÏthreaten€the€integrity€of€the€judicial€systemóó.ÌÌÌ445€N.W.2d€at€500€(emphasis€added;€citations€omitted).€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€our€view,€òòWhiteóó€and€òòDupreeóó€are€applicable€in€this€case.€€TheÏcontingency€fee€contract€for€physician€services€is€expressly€prohibited€by€bothÏthe€òòAmerican€Medical€Association€Code€of€Ethicsóó€and€the€Tennessee€Code€ofÏProfessional€Responsibility.€€For€the€reasons€previously€discussed,€the€violationÏnot€only€subverts€the€doctor/patient€relationship€but€also€converts€Dr.€SwaffordÏinto€a€partisan€with€an€economic€interest€in€the€outcome.€€Swaffordððs€principalÏdefense€on€appeal€is€that€he€was€either€unaware€of€the€ethical€provisions€or€didÏnot€belong€to€the€organizations€that€promulgate€the€provisions„„an€explanationÏtantamount€to€suggesting€he€is€subject€to€no€public€policy€or€regulatory€authorityÏwhatsoever.€€We€conclude€that€allowing€quantum€meruit€under€theseÏcircumstances€would€undermine€and€subvert€strong€public€policies€establishedÏto€prohibit€unprofessional€conduct€which€affects€the€integrity€of€the€judicialÏprocess€and€the€administration€of€justice.€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àBased€on€the€foregoing€authority€and€discussion€we€conclude€thatÏa€contract€requiring€a€party€to€pay€a€fee€for€medico/legal€expert€services€and/orÍmedical€treatment€that€is€contingent€on€the€outcome€of€litigation€is€against€publicÏpolicy€and€unenforceable.€€We€also€conclude€that€a€quantum€meruit€recovery€isÏnot€appropriate€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€ÌÌà àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff,€Dr.€Greg€Swafford,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó ó€€ÌÌBirch,€Drowota,€Reid,€and€Holder,€JJ.ÌÌÌÌ