Reported / Citable
Background
Mouhammad-Mounir Charara retained attorney Nicholas Parks under an agreement providing Parks with 35% of any recovery in Charara’s Fair Labor Standards Act case against DRL Group, L.P. After the lawsuit was filed, DRL offered $100,000 to settle. Charara and Parks disagreed over the wording of a response rejecting that offer and, more broadly, whether the offer should be accepted.
Parks told Charara by telephone and email that he was immediately withdrawing from the representation. Charara then accepted DRL’s $100,000 offer himself. Parks attempted the next morning to retract his withdrawal, after which Charara terminated the representation. The settlement ultimately directed $65,000 to Charara and placed the disputed $35,000 contingent-fee share in the court registry. Parks and Charara then asked the court to determine entitlement to those funds.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that the two motions at ECF Nos. 11 and 15 be granted, that the motion at ECF No. 27 be denied, and that the entire $35,000 held in the court registry be immediately disbursed to Charara. The recommendation concluded that Parks abandoned the representation without just cause and therefore forfeited any right to compensation under Texas law.
Parks’s written statement that he was withdrawing “immediately,” reinforced by his telephone conversation with Charara and his later effort to retract the withdrawal, demonstrated a clear and unequivocal intent to end the representation. The court found that a routine disagreement over language in a communication to opposing counsel did not supply just cause and that a client’s refusal to accept a settlement offer likewise did not justify withdrawal. Parks could not unilaterally revive the agreement after abandoning it, and the absence of a formal motion to withdraw did not preserve his contractual fee rights because court authorization to withdraw and abandonment for fee purposes are separate questions.
Key Takeaways
- Under Texas law, a lawyer who abandons a contingent-fee representation without just cause before the matter concludes forfeits the right to compensation.
- A disagreement over settlement communications or a client’s decision not to accept a settlement offer does not, by itself, establish just cause for withdrawal.
- Whether a court formally permits counsel to withdraw is distinct from whether counsel has abandoned the representation for purposes of a later attorney-fee dispute.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates the financial consequences of an unequivocal withdrawal from a contingent-fee representation. An attorney’s attempt to retract that withdrawal may not restore the fee agreement, particularly after the attorney has clearly communicated an immediate end to the representation.
Because the ruling is a memorandum and recommendation, the parties have fourteen days after service to file written objections before the district court acts on the recommended disposition.