A recent law.com story, “Factors to Consider Before Law Firms Sue Ex-Clients Over Unpaid Fees” reports that some recent court filings in Texas suggest that some law firms they have  no choice but to sue a client for unpaid legal fees.  Filings include:

In Re Sayles/Werbner, et al:  In this case, three Texas firms want to depose four executives of GeoTag to ask them why they terminated the firms’ representation last year and why they allegedly didn’t pay the firms.  The law firms allege they preformed a significant amount of patent litigation for GeoTag under an attorney-client contingent-fee agreement, including serving as litigation counsel for GeoTag in four suits.  That fee contract called for the firms to be paid based on a percentage of proceeds received from the patent.  The firms claim their legal work has “greatly enhanced” the value of the patent, but the company never paid the firms.

“Therefore, Petitioners, despite their reluctance to bring an action against their former client, will likely have to file a suit against GeoTag in order to protect Petitioners’ right to recover their agreed percentage shares of any and all funds received by GeoTag from the monetization of the…patent in any manner.”

Thompson & Knight v. Daniel Bloom, et al:  In this case, Dallas’ Thompson & Knight sued former client Daniel Bloom and Dana Bloom alleging the defendants failed to pay the firm $9,230 in legal fees for representation in a stock sale.  Jeff Zlotfy, Thompson & Knight’s managing partner, says the fee dispute case is an “extremely unusual” case for the firm, but filed it to protect other clients also involved in the stock sale.  “It was an unusual circumstance where we had multiple clients.  And other clients could have become obligated to increase the amount they pay to us if the other clients didn’t come through with their fair share,” Zlotky says.