The New York Attorney Fee Contract Contingency—33-1/3% (also known as a 33 1/3 attorney fees arrangement) is a type of legal agreement that allows attorneys in the State of New York to represent clients on a contingency basis. This arrangement means that the attorney will only receive payment if they successfully recover compensation for their client, calculated as 33 1/3% of the total recovery. It is important for all parties to understand and negotiate the exact terms of this agreement before hiring an attorney.
In this case, Plaintiff negotiated a 33 1/3 attorney fees provision with its attorney in connection with its claim for unpaid invoices. The underlying debt was owed for goods that Plaintiff sold and delivered to Defendant pursuant to a Credit Agreement. The Agreement provided that [p]laintiff agrees to pay, in the event this account becomes delinquent or is turned over for collection, attorney's fees based on a rate of 33 1/3% of the balance due whether suit is instituted or not, plus attendance and collection fees.
Defendant moved to dismiss the claim for attorneys’ fees, arguing that the contractual provision was unenforceable in part or in its entirety. The Court denied the motion, and it will now review the issue of reasonable attorney’s fees, including the application of the 33 1/3 attorney fees rate, on a case-by-case basis.
The Hulk Hogan case and the Appellate Division’s fee schedules make clear that attorneys may charge hourly and contingent fees in the same case, so long as the total amount is reasonable. It is crucial for attorneys to assess whether the 33 1/3 attorney fees arrangement aligns with these guidelines and ensures fairness and reasonableness under the circumstances of each case.
Here, the Court found that the 33 1/3 attorney fees provision in the underlying debt is unreasonable as it disproportionately ties counsel’s ultimate compensation to the client’s overall recovery without requiring any showing that the quantity or quality of the firm’s services justifies such a high percentage of the overall recovery. The provision also ignores the nature of the work performed by counsel, and it seems to require a considerable amount of time to review the underlying debt.
It is worth noting that, in its brief on this issue, Plaintiff states that it will waive the attorney’s fees if the Court determines they are reasonable.d Whether this waiver implies a concession of the excessive nature of the 33 1/3 attorney fees rate is unclear. Regardless, the Court will review the issue of counsel’s reasonable fees, including the scrutiny of the 33 1/3 rate, in this matter on a case-by-case analysis.
In New York, personal injury attorneys are subject to a unique fee structure, where the maximum contingency fee is capped at 33 1/3 attorney fees. This contrasts with other states, where the cap might be as high as 40% or 50%. Such a limitation can make it less appealing for lawyers to take on workers' compensation cases, as they might only earn around 33 1/3 attorney fees of the net recovery after accounting for expenses. However, recent ethics opinions from New York State indicate that attorneys can creatively combine hourly and flat fees in their retainer agreements, ensuring the total doesn't surpass the 33 1/3 attorney fees threshold.
Determining an appropriate charge for New York personal injury lawyers is complex. While the 33 1/3 attorney fees serve as a standard, they may not always align with the complexity of a case. Simpler cases might fit well within this fee structure, but more intricate legal battles may necessitate a blend of fee arrangements, all while staying within the 33 1/3 attorney fees cap.
These ethical opinions highlight that adhering to the 33 1/3 attorney fees cap doesn't hinder lawyers from receiving fair compensation, especially in scenarios requiring significant legal skill and resources. Lawyers must judiciously evaluate their case demands when determining fees, even when operating within the 33 1/3 attorney fees framework.
For clients in New York, comprehending the implications of the 33 1/3 attorney fees is crucial when engaging in legal services. This rate provides a predictable cost structure but should be discussed in detail with the attorney to understand how it applies to the specifics of their case, including potential additional charges.
In summary, the 33 1/3 attorney fees in New York establish a baseline for contingency fees, yet allow for flexible arrangements to meet the unique demands of each case. This ensures legal services are accessible and that attorneys are justly remunerated for their expertise and the risks associated with contingency cases, as long as the total fees remain within the legal limits.
In New York, a common arrangement in personal injury cases is the NY 1/3 Attorney Fee Agreement, where the attorney receives 33 1/3 attorney fees as compensation. Hourly rate fee agreements are the traditional approach in commercial litigation, contingent fees are the norm in personal injury matters, and flat fees are standard for real estate closings. However, hybrid fee arrangements that combine elements of hourly, flat, and contingent fees are also emerging. Is such an arrangement ethically permissible?
The answer appears to be yes, at least if certain conditions are met. First, as highlighted in precedent cases, it is necessary to establish that any contingent fee, such as the 33 1/3 attorney fees, will not be exceeded. Second, any combination of hourly and contingent fees must be reasonable under the circumstances and comply with applicable court rules (e.g., DR 2-106). This ensures that the total fees, including the 33 1/3 attorney fees, are fair and justifiable.
This is especially important with regard to the Appellate Division's fee schedule, which sets maximum contingency fees for personal injury cases. An initial contingent fee that exceeds the fee schedule, such as more than 33 1/3 attorney fees, would violate the rules and the purposes of 22 NYCRR 603.7. This regulation is designed to protect unsophisticated plaintiffs from overreaching attorneys, ensuring that fees like 33 1/3 attorney fees are within ethical and legal boundaries.
In addition, it is essential to include in the retainer agreement language that safeguards the Attorney's interest should the Client determine at any time that it is not feasible for him or her to pursue the Legal Matter. To this end, the blank line presented in Article V of the retainer should be filled in with the name of the Client whose legal name is presented on the first blank line of the document (labeled "I. Client"). This clause should be clear about the implications of discontinuing the case, particularly in the context of the 33 1/3 attorney fees arrangement, ensuring transparency and understanding for all parties involved.
Kucher Law Group Injury Attorney
463 Pulaski St #1c, Brooklyn, NY 11221, United States
(929) 563-6780