LEO #1620 ATTORNEY'S LIEN; FEES; PROPRIETY OF ATTORNEY WAITING FOR
          SETTLEMENT OR VERDICT BEFORE DETERMINING AMOUNT OF
          ATTORNEY'S FEES SECURED BY LIEN; QUANTUM MERUIT

You have presented a hypothetical situation in which an attorney
("Attorney") was retained to represent a client ("Client") in a
claim for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident. 
You indicate that Attorney diligently prosecuted the claim for
approximately two and one-half years, when the Attorney received a
telephone call from client's husband advising that new counsel had
been retained because Client and husband had a difference of
opinion with attorney about value of Client's claim.  There was no
allegation that Attorney was being discharged for cause.  Further,
Attorney was instructed to turn over the complete file to the new
counsel, which was accomplished within one week of the request.

You further indicate that Attorney asserted a lien for attorneys'
fees under Section 54.l-3932 of the Code of Virginia on a "quantum
meruit" basis.  Client, Attorney, and new attorney agree that
[former] Attorney is entitled to a fee based on "quantum meruit".

Finally, you indicate that approximately four months prior to
trial, Client is demanding that [former] Attorney immediately
inform Client of the exact amount of attorneys' fees owed.

You have asked the committee to opine whether, under the facts of
the inquiry, it is proper for Attorney to wait until there is a
settlement or verdict in the case before determining the amount of
the attorneys' fees secured by the lien.

The ethical duty of a lawyer, whose services are on-going or have
been terminated, is to furnish on request of the client "[t]he
basis or rate of [the lawyer's] fee."  DR 2-l05(B).  All fees must
be "reasonable and adequately explained...."  DR 2-l05(A).  Ethical
Consideration 2-20 sets forth illustrative factors with respect to
the reasonableness of fees and, correspondingly, the basis or rate
used in arriving at the quantum of fees charged.

Hence the committee is of the opinion that the lawyer has a duty to
furnish the former client with the "basis or rate" of fees sought
for representation in the matter.  Since the lawyer's services have
been terminated in the on-going matter, the time at which the
lawyer must furnish the quantum of fees, as opposed to the "basis
or rate" presents a legal issue beyond the Committee's purview.

DRs 2-105(A) and (B); EC 2-20; Va. Code Ann.  54.1-3932; Heinzman
v. Fine, Fine, Legum & Fine, 217 Va. 958 (1977); County of Campbell
v. Howard, 133 Va. 19 (1922); Lowe v. Mid-Atlantic Coca Cola
Bottling Co., VLW 094-8-170]

Committee Opinion
November 29, 1994