Vanessa Wereko (“Wereko”) retained The Law Office of Tiffany M. Hughes (the “Firm”) to represent her throughout her divorce proceedings. One month before trial, the Firm withdrew as counsel for Wereko’s alleged failure to pay all of her bills and then sued Wereko for breach of contract. Wereko filed counterclaims for breach of contract and negligence. The circuit court found in favor of the Firm and dismissed Wereko’s counterclaims.
On appeal, Wereko asserted with respect to the parties’ breach of contract claims that the retainer agreement only permitted the Firm to withdraw under specific circumstances. These circumstances included nonpayment, but Wereko explained that the Firm had billed her more often than was agreed upon thereby improperly triggering her obligation to pay. The court noted however that “in her email communications with the firm, Wereko did not question the frequency of the invoices, but instead communicated her inability to fully pay the billed amounts.” Id. at ¶32. Moreover, “the retainer agreement did not expressly provide that the enumerated bases were the exhaustive bases for withdrawal.” Id. at ¶30. To that, the Firm asserted that Wereko refused to comply with certain of the Firm’s advice and had not maintained a valid credit card on file with the Firm as required by the agreement. Id. at ¶¶34, 35. The court held therefore that “the withdrawal was consistent with the terms of the parties’ agreement and appears compliant with our supreme court rules.” Id. at ¶33.
As for Wereko’s negligence claim, the court explained that “it would be unreasonable to expect the firm to foresee that its conduct would result in” the damages suggested by Wereko. Id. at ¶46. At their core, they were expenditures resulting from Wereko’s husband’s decision to dismiss his counter-petition and refile in a new county. Id. at ¶46. The court also noted that “the [lower court] approved the firm’s withdrawal.” Id. Thus, it concluded that “Wereko failed to prove her counterclaims.” Id. at ¶47.
(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)