[T]he onus is on the duty of ensuring the validity of a conditional agreement is placed directly and exclusively on the lawyer. This burden on counsel clearly reflects the imperative policy in the relationship between the lawyer and the client to make the lawyer responsible for consulting the client on the nature of the relationship. See for example.B., 2 ABA/BNA, Lawyers` Manual on Professional Conduct, 41:313 (1994) . . See also Beeson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, P.2d [1997 WL 6301] (Colo. App. No 96CA0884, January 9, 1997). The New York law is clear that a client can provide the services of a lawyer, with or without reason. (Matter of Montgomery, 272 NY 323, 326 [1936]; Reubenbaum vs. B.

– H. Express, 6 AD2d 47, 48 [1. Dept 1958].) Reubenbaum stated (at 48 years of age) that “if this happens, counsel is entitled to compensation determined by the quantenmeruit, whether more or less than what is provided for in the contract or in the position between the lawyer and the client (Matter of Montgomery, 272 N.Y. 323; Matter of Tillman, 259 N.Y. 133; Krooks Matter, 257 N. Y. 329. After the applicant`s new lawyers, Michael A. Zimmerman – Associates, P.C., the applicant`s outgoing lawyers, Rovegno and Taylor, P.C., resolved the immediate case, the applicant`s outgoing lawyers, travel to determine the distribution of legal fees between the incoming and outgoing lawyers. Mr. Zimmerman disputed Rovegno and Taylor`s claim, arguing that the outgoing lawyers were dismissed for reasons and would not be entitled to a royalty, or, alternatively, if they were dismissed without cause, if Rovegno and Taylor were to have their quanten-meruit-based fees determined. For the following reasons, this court finds that the outgoing lawyers were dismissed without cause, and the outgoing lawyers, in the absence of prior fee agreement with the incoming lawyer, are entitled to the payment of legal fees from the proceeds of the transaction on a possible basis.

[*2] Background Our Chapter 23.3 rules regulate contingency cost contracts and rules 5 (d) and 6 quantenmeruit as part of the clientelistic lawyer`s relationship. Rule 5, point (d), essentially provides that “any conditional royalty agreement . . . . a statement about the possibility that a client must pay compensation that does not come from the sums recovered by the lawyer. Rule 6 defines “penalty for non-compliance” provided that “no conditional royalty agreement is enforceable by the interested counsel, unless all the provisions of [Chapter 23.3] have been complied with in a meaningful way.” Factors used to determine quantum-meruit charges when unloading was done for no reason are work done by the company prior to termination; The nature of the royalty system, such as the eventuality and time per hour; and the prospect of the client`s victory at the time of the dismissal, Sack said.