A recent New York Law Journal story, “Judge Backs Firm’s Demand for $414,000 in Fee Dispute,” reports that Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden has ruled that Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Adaby is due more than $414,000 in attorney fees from a disgruntled client who contended the law firm mishandled the accounting of a stock transfer transaction and other matters in what became an acrimonious attorney-client relationship.  She ruled that the “account stated rule,” in which a client pays part of a bill is generally deemed to have accepted the entire billing as valid. 

In Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Adaby v. Michael Rose, Madden said she agreed with Emery Celli’s contention that the account stated rule makes Rose liable for the outstanding legal bills.  She ruled that Rose cannot invoke legal malpractice as a defense against account stated in this matter because he failed to show how Emery Celli had actually committed malpractice.

Rose hired Emery Celli for an initial retainer of $50,000 and the law firm agreed to bill the real estate company for the hourly service of its attorneys thereafter.  Emery Celli said it represented Rose or Broadside Realty in three subsequent suits stemming from Rose’s efforts to gain control of the company.  In April 2008, Emery Celli negotiated a settlement with the other shareholders under which Rose would get back all outstanding stock for $12 million.  Emery Celli alleged that Rose, after some sporadic payments to the law firm, stopped payments altogether in 2009.

Richard Emery said yesterday in an interview that the ruling is “especially appropriate in light of the fact that we achieved success for our client, who then decided not to pay us.”