ILNews

Lawyer entitled to $1.05 million default judgment

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a default judgment in favor of an Indiana attorney because an Illinois attorney demonstrated "contumacious disregard" for a trial court's orders.

In David J. Fitzpatrick d/b/a David J. Fitzpatrick and Associates v. Kenneth J. Allen and Associates, P.C., No. 64A03-0811-CV-545, Illinois attorney David Fitzpatrick challenged the trial court's decision to enter default judgment in Indiana attorney Kenneth J. Allen's favor for $1.35 million in attorney fees. Allen, Fitzpatrick and attorney Mitchell Iseberg entered into a fee-sharing contract in which Fitzpatrick would handle a couple's products liability claim in an Illinois court and Allen would handle the medical malpractice suit filed by the couple. The agreement stipulated the attorneys would be paid 33 1/3 percent of any judgments or settlements in the couple's favor - Allen would receive 50 percent and Fitzpatrick and Iseberg would split the remaining 50 percent.

At some point during the litigation, Fitzpatrick proposed a different fee-sharing agreement and Allen rejected it. The next day, the couple terminated Allen's representation regarding the products liability case but retained him for the medical malpractice suit. The products liability case settled, but Fitzpatrick refused to disclose the amount. In August 2004, the trial court ordered disclosure of the settlement amount; Fitzpatrick refused and eventually the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of Allen. By this time, Allen had withdrawn from representing the couple in the medical malpractice suit.

Fitzpatrick eventually disclosed the products liability suit settled for $8.1 million, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of Allen, basing the award on 50 percent of the $2.7 million, which is 33 1/3 percent of the settlement amount.

Fitzpatrick argued that Indiana law prefers to give parties their day in court, but Indiana Trial Rule 37 doesn't require a trial court to impose a lesser sanction before dismissing an action or entering default judgment when a disobedient party has displayed contumacious disregard for a court's orders, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. Fitzpatrick had plenty of opportunities to disclose the settlement amount, but did not, despite the 2004 order that the information was discoverable.

The trial court was also correct in ordering a judgment in favor of Allen based on the fee agreement contract and not quantum meruit damages. Fitzpatrick's argument that the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) prohibits Allen from collecting more than quantum meruit damages is misplaced, the appellate court ruled.

"The flaw in Fitzpatrick's argument is that he focuses upon Allen's level of participation in the products liability suit alone," the judge wrote.

Instead of examining what Allen did under the products liability case, one should examine the broad agreement encompassing both suits. Allen performed the work required of him under the parties' contract.

The trial court did err in awarding Allen $1.35 million by failing to take into account $600,000 that had been awarded to an attorney who worked on the couple's case and was dismissed after the couple hired Fitzpatrick. The Court of Appeals remanded for the trial court to enter a new judgment ordering Fitzpatrick to pay $1.05 million in damages, plus costs and interest, to Allen.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT