The Court Had The Equitable Power To Alter A Contingent Fee Agreement Between A Seaman And His Attorney
NOOR BEGUM KARIM, Etc.; ET AL., Plaintiffs, FAZAL KARIM,Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FINCH SHIPPING COMPANY LTD.; ET AL., Defendants, andTHE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. MINICLIER, Appellant. In Re: In the Matter of FINCHSHIPPING COMPANY LTD., Owner and Operator of the M/V Loussio for Exonerationfrom or Limitation of Liability; NOOR BEGUM KARIM, Etc.; ET AL., Claimants,FAZAL KARIM, Claimant-Appellee, versus THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. MINICLIER,Appellant.
No. 03-30069
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11815
June 16, 2004, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant, the attorney who represented appellee seaman pursuant to a contingency fee agreement, sought review of an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, asserting that the court erred when it modified the terms of the contingent fee agreement to be more beneficial to the seaman, who was absent from the jurisdiction. The ultimate issue was whether the district court abused its discretion.
OVERVIEW: The seaman, a Bangladeshi national, was injured at sea and taken to New Orleans to recuperate. The attorney advanced many of the seaman's expenses, for which he had been reimbursed. When the vessel owner eventually paid the judgment in favor of the seaman, he had long since been deported. Rather than pay the judgment to the attorney, as the attorney demanded, the owner paid the judgment into the court, which exercised its protective role for the seaman, as a ward of the court. It modified the fee agreement from the contract terms, whereby the attorney would have received 40 percent of the gross judgment, which would have left the seaman with no recovery. The attorney appealed, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction and lacked the legal authority to alter the fee agreement. The court of appeals affirmed. The district court, sitting in admiralty, had the equitable power to reform the contingent fee agreement, particularly to the benefit of an absent seaman, and was not limited to paying out the funds. The fact that the court applied Louisiana and Bangladeshi law in the case did not alter the admiralty jurisdiction. There was no abuse of discretion by the district court.
OUTCOME: The judgment of the district court was affirmed.
