Shoreham Developers, Inc. v. Statland

McWilliams, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this dispute between attorney and client the trial judge, Bowie, J., thought their arrangement was neither as claimed by the client (Shoreham) nor as claimed by the attorney (Statland). He concluded it lay between the one and the other. Statland, although disappointed with Judge Bowie’s resolution of the issue, seems content to let it stand.

Shoreham, hewing to its original stance, invites us to strike down the judgment below and to replace it with a judgment reflecting its contention. We shall affirm the result reached by Judge Bowie. Statland became one of Shoreham’s attorneys in 1963. In addition to a monthly retainer of $300 it was understood that any protracted litigation would justify additional fees.

In 1964 Shoreham presented Statland with a problem, concerning 32 acres of land, which ultimately reached this Court, Shoreham Developers, Inc. v. Randolph Hills, Inc., 248 Md. 267 (1967). We reversed the order dismissing Shoreham’s bill for specific performance and remanded the case for further proceedings. In the end Shoreham prevailed and as a result the value of the 32 acres increased by about $300,000. In March 1969 Statland billed Shoreham for $60,000 less payments made during the preceding five years amounting to $8,575.

We shall not undertake to distill from this voluminous record the many mutations in the arrangements dealing with counsel’s compensation. It suffices to say that the evidence would support Shoreham’s claim that the total fee was not to exceed $10,000 including the $8,575 already paid, Statland’s claim of $51,425 ($60,000 — $8,-575), and Judge Bowie’s finding that an agreement had been reached providing for the payment of a flat $10,000, contingent upon success, in addition to the previous billings of $8,575. Judge Bowie was the trier of facts. He saw the witnesses; he heard them testify.

As Maryland ⁶⁹¹ Rule 886 requires we have given “due regard” to his “opportunity * * * to judge * * * [their] credibility.” On this record, which we