KATHERINE FELICIANO VS. JEFFREY N. FALDETTA, ET
AL.
A-1301-12T3
This appeal raised the issue of whether, in the
context of a contingent fee case, an award of fees under
Rule 4:58-2(a) should be reduced by the amount of the
contingent fee to avoid a double recovery. The panel held
that it should not because the fee belongs to the client
and the attorney is not entitled to the entire contingent
fee from the client under that circumstance. The attorney
is entitled to the fee awarded pursuant to Rule 4:58-2 for
the work done after the offer of judgment was rejected and
fair compensation from the client for the period prior to
that. 02/21/14
AL.
A-1301-12T3
This appeal raised the issue of whether, in the
context of a contingent fee case, an award of fees under
Rule 4:58-2(a) should be reduced by the amount of the
contingent fee to avoid a double recovery. The panel held
that it should not because the fee belongs to the client
and the attorney is not entitled to the entire contingent
fee from the client under that circumstance. The attorney
is entitled to the fee awarded pursuant to Rule 4:58-2 for
the work done after the offer of judgment was rejected and
fair compensation from the client for the period prior to
that. 02/21/14
