Barrett v. Rosario

Background

Chandra K. Barrett brought a personal-injury action against Ruben R. Rosario and Aspen Landscaping Contracting, Inc., based on a May 2, 2018 motor-vehicle accident. Michael G. LoRusso represented Barrett from September 2018 until April 20, 2021, when the court allowed him to withdraw. Stephen Liakas then represented Barrett. The case was ultimately settled for $600,000, and the parties voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice on December 7, 2022.

Before withdrawing, LoRusso had negotiated a proposed $150,000 settlement and sought a charging lien. A charging lien is a legal claim that allows an attorney to seek payment from money recovered for the client. The court later found that Barrett had authorized LoRusso to settle for $150,000 but that the settlement could not be enforced because there was no written agreement. After Liakas took over, he opposed the motion to enforce the proposed settlement, continued discovery, and negotiated the $600,000 settlement.

Parties’ Positions

LoRusso argued that his fee should reflect the substantial work he performed before withdrawing, including preparing the complaint, conducting discovery, collecting medical records, and negotiating the earlier settlement. He sought a proportionate share of the legal fees under his contingency-fee agreement, which provided for 33.33% of any recovery.

Liakas argued that LoRusso was not entitled to fees or, alternatively, that he should receive $50,000—the amount he would have received from a one-third fee on the $150,000 settlement. Neither attorney kept contemporaneous time records, so the court could not precisely compare the hours each spent.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied New York law governing charging liens. It concluded that LoRusso had appeared as Barrett’s attorney, had not been discharged for cause, and therefore retained a charging lien. The court rejected the argument that LoRusso’s conduct had been adverse to Barrett’s interests, relying on Judge Woods’s earlier findings that Barrett had authorized the $150,000 settlement and later lied under oath about that authorization.

Because LoRusso had deferred payment until the end of the case, the court treated his compensation as a contingent fee based on his proportionate share of the work. The court considered the attorneys’ experience, the work each performed, the difficulty of the case, the time spent, and their effectiveness in resolving the matter. It found both attorneys experienced, credited LoRusso with substantial work before his withdrawal, and credited Liakas with successfully defeating enforcement of the $150,000 settlement and obtaining a settlement four times larger.

Ruling

The court determined that LoRusso’s fair and reasonable share was $49,995, equal to one-third of the $150,000 settlement he had negotiated. It also awarded him $1,129.36 in costs. Because the charging lien was equitable, the court denied prejudgment interest.

The court’s conclusion states that LoRusso’s motion is GRANTED to the extent that he receives a charging lien for $49,995 in attorneys’ fees and $1,129.36 in costs, with no prejudgment interest. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.