Legal Fee Contracts | Sacks v. Haden (Tex. 2008)

Texas Supreme Court enforces open-ended letter agreement for attorney's fees; disallows testimony about cap on fees claimed by client as impermissible under the parol evidence rule.

Sep. 26, 2008 UPDATE :
Texas Supreme Court issues Substituted Opinion in Sacks v. Haden (Tex. 2008)

Sacks v. Haden (Tex. July 11, 2008) (superseded per curiam opinion)

Client who challenged fee bill for federal appeal pays dearly as Texas Supreme Court rules for law firm in fee collection suit. Court gives effect to fee agreement which stated hourly rate, but no limit on hours or dollars, and holds that under the parol evidence rule client was not permitted to testify that the fee was capped. Houston Court of Appeals had held otherwise.

David J. Sacks, P.C. vs. Charles McIntre Haden,
No. 07-0472 (Tex. July 11, 2008) (per curiam)
(attorney fee litigation, breach of contract, parol evidence rule)

Texas Supreme Court says that Houston court of appeals erred in holding that there was no meeting of the minds necessary to form a binding contract governing appellate attorney's fees, and further erred in holding that the parol evidence rule did not bar the client’s evidence of an agreement with the law firm to cap fees. The evidence offered by Haden would alter the written fee agreement, and is therefore not admissible under the collateral and consistent exception to the parol evidence rule, the Court says.

DAVID J. SACKS, P.C. D/B/A SACKS & ASSOCIATES v. CHARLES MCINTYRE HADEN, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, AND CHARLES MCINTYRE HADEN, JR. & COMPANY D/B/A HADEN & COMPANY; from Harris County; 1st district (01-01-00200-CV, 222 SW3d 580, 03-08-07)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Supreme Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and reinstates the trial court's judgment. (Retrieve Per Curiam Opinion in pdf)

Breach of warranty =?= breach of contract

Does breach of express warranty constitute breach of contract? Texas Supreme Court answers in the affirmative. Recovery of attorney's fees thus authorized for successful litigant, along with damages.

Medical City Dallas, Ltd. vs. Carlisle Corp., No. 06-0660 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2008) (Opinion by Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson) (breach of express warranty claim, entitlement to attorney's fees)

MEDICAL CITY DALLAS, LTD. v. CARLISLE CORPORATION D/B/A CARLISLE SYNTECSYSTEMS; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-04-00157-CV, 196 S.W.3d 855, 06-27-06)
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and reinstates the trial court's judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.
(Justice Hecht not sitting)

"Because Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 38.001(8) permits an award of attorney’s fees for a suit based on a written or oral contract, and because we conclude that breach of an express warranty is such a claim, the court of appeals erred in reversing Medical City’s attorney’s fees award in connection with its successful claim for breach of an express warranty. Accordingly, we reverse in part the court of appeals' judgment and reinstate the trial court’s judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 60.2(c)."