Cited by

¶25 To determine whether fees are reasonable, courts consider (1) the attorney’s training, education, experience, professional standing, and skill, (2) the difficulty, intricacy, and complexity of the work, (3) “the skill, time, and attention given to the work[,]” and (4) “whether the attorney was successful and what benefits were derived.” –46 (1959).

¶36 Rental Renovators counters that Hall “was wrongly decided and has been overruled by Arizona’s Legislature.” Rental Renovators argues that, Rental “interest on unliquidated claims does not accrue until rendition of judgment.” Schwartz, which declared that “interest is added, after the claim is liquidated.” Under Hall, Schwartz and Head, the verdict for $42,500 liquidated Gipson’s cl

Joseph’s Hosp., (citing cases) (noting, in that circumstance, the “attorney generally has a remedy only against the client for the value of his service”) (emphasis added); (citing authority) (addressing a claim where, unlike this case, the attorneys’ fee “is not fixed by an agreement between” the attorney and the client)

(“The law is well settled that an admission in an answer is binding on the party 9 LACHANCE v. COUNTY OF COCHISE Opinion of the Court making it, and is conclusive as to the admitted fact.”).

(“[A]n admission in an answer is binding on the party making it, and is conclusive as to the admitted fact.”); see also Aetna Cas.

Longstanding precedent establishes an attorney may claim fees from a client in quantum meruit if “the amount of compensation claimed is not fixed by an agreement between the parties.”

Longstanding precedent establishes an attorney may claim fees from a client in quantum meruit only if “the amount of compensation claimed is not fixed by an agreement between the parties.” (emphasis added).

In support, they cite Schwartz v. Schwerin

(“The law is well settled that an admission in an answer is binding on the party making it, and is conclusive as to the admitted fact.

¶17 Claiming he was entitled to payment for his services in quantum meruit

(party who admitted certain property was community property was precluded “[b]y the pleadings alone” from later objecting to that characterization of the property); (defendants who did not wish to be bound by answer should have requested leave to amend and, by failing to do so, were bound by answer); Bank of Am.

¶ 10 At oral argument, Marge’s counsel, Charles Stegall, argued that Ferris’ fee request failed to comply with Arizona Rule of Probate Procedure 33 as well as the standards adopted in Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.

Const. Co., , 186 P. 502 , 509 (1920) overruled on other grounds

Const. Co., , 186 P. 502 , 509 (1920) overruled on other grounds

See also, -46 , (holding that the court determines reasonable attorneys’ fees by considering “the qualit[y] of the advocate ...

Examples of unliquidated *83 claims are attorney’s fees, , benefit-of-the-bargain damages, , vacated in part by , punitive damages, Lake Havasu Community Hosp., Inc., and the reasonable value of landlord improvements, Trollope v. Koerner, 21 Ariz.App.

Schwartz v. *165 Schwerin

It expressly stated, however, that it had considered the limited information before it concerning counsel’s ability, training, education, experience, professional standing and skill, as well as the character of the work involved, the skill, time and attention given to the work

overruled on other grounds

246 P. 543 (1926), overruled on other grounds

On appeal Taylor Pearson first objects to Murdock-Bryant’s figure of $420,492.97 for their total costs, , overruled on other grounds, , for the proposition that in a quantum meruit recovery: [T]he measure of the value of the services rendered must be the value to the defendants, not the cost to the plaintiff in performing such services.

our supreme court elucidated the reason behind our rule: "If the claim is unliquidated and is in dispute no interest is allowed upon the theory that the person liable does not know the sum he owes and therefore can be in no default for not paying."