Brown v. McGoldrick: CT Lawyer Fee Dispute Verdict
Table of Contents
Case Background
A disagreement between two Connecticut lawyers over a client referral fee led to a courtroom showdown that exposed tensions in how attorneys share cases. Donald M. Brown, an experienced attorney from Avon, sued Jill M. McGoldrick and her Milford-based law firm after she allegedly failed to pay him for handing over a personal injury client. The dispute centered on a verbal agreement that Brown said entitled him to a cut of the settlement, but McGoldrick disputed the deal's terms. The case dragged through the state's Superior Court for years, shining a light on the unwritten rules of professional referrals among lawyers.
Cause
The trouble started in April 2018 when a man named Scott Cascella, who suffered a serious injury, hired Brown to handle his personal injury claim. Brown met Cascella in the hospital, signed a contingency fee agreement for one-third of any recovery, and began gathering records. Soon after, McGoldrick's office reached out, saying she met with Cascella and planned to take the case. Brown claimed her team knew Cascella already had a lawyer but pushed ahead anyway. According to Brown, McGoldrick's staff verbally promised him a one-third referral fee from their eventual settlement. Emails confirmed the handover of files, with no objections to the fee split. McGoldrick later settled the case, but Brown said she ignored his demands for payment, leading to what he called evasive tactics.
Injury
Unlike typical injury cases, this dispute caused no physical harm, but Brown described significant professional and financial setbacks. He argued the broken promise damaged his trust in colleague referrals and left him out of pocket for work he already performed. The fallout also strained his reputation and added stress from chasing the unpaid fee.
Damages
Brown sought repayment of the $58,333.33 he believed the referral entitled him to, based on the one-third share. Beyond that, he pointed to extra costs from the evasion, including time spent pursuing the matter. He also claimed emotional strain and harm to his practice, arguing the Defendants' actions violated fair business standards among lawyers.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Donald M. Brown
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Luis a Medina
Defendant(s): Jill M. McGoldrick
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Isabelle L. Koch
Key Arguments by Counsel
Attorneys on both sides focused on the handshake nature of referral deals in the legal world. Brown's team portrayed the situation as a clear betrayal, emphasizing emails and conversations that showed agreement on the fee. They argued lawyers rely on such understandings to share work smoothly. Defense counsel countered that no firm contract existed, calling the claims overblown. Remarks during trial highlighted ethics, with each side urging jurors to consider how professionals typically handle referrals without written pacts.
Claims
Breach of Contract
Brown split this claim into two counts, one against McGoldrick personally and one against her firm. He said the verbal promise and email exchanges formed a binding deal for the one-third fee. When she settled Cascella's case without paying, she broke that agreement.
Unjust Enrichment
In parallel counts against both Defendants, Brown argued they profited unfairly from his initial work. He met the client first, started the case, and handed over files, allowing them to secure the settlement without compensating him.
Violation of CUTPA
Brown accused McGoldrick of unfair trade practices under Connecticut law. He claimed her actions, like knowingly taking a represented client and dodging the fee, went against ethical standards and harmed his business.
Fraudulent Inducement
This count targeted McGoldrick, alleging she tricked him into releasing the client with false promises of payment. Brown said her assurances lured him to cooperate, only for her to renege later.
Defense
The Defendants admitted basic facts like their business locations and the client handover but denied any binding agreement or wrongdoing. They lacked enough details to confirm or reject Brown's timeline and conversations, leaving him to prove them. On all counts, they rejected liability outright. In special defenses, they argued the claims fell outside the statute of limitations and that Brown failed to mitigate his losses. They also said no enforceable contract existed without a written document, and any verbal talk did not create obligations.
Jury Verdict
The jury delivered a clean sweep for the Defendants on November 6, 2024, finding against Brown on every count. They checked "Defendant" for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, CUTPA, and fraudulent inducement against McGoldrick, as well as the contract and enrichment claims against her firm. No damages went to Brown, and the panel rejected any punitive awards. The case ended without a settlement, going fully to trial and underscoring how verbal deals can falter in court. This outcome served as a cautionary tale for lawyers about putting referral agreements in writing to avoid similar headaches.