law-void-and-voidable-contract | illegality defense to contract claim | contract unenforceable as against public
policy | consideration-in-contract-context | no consideration | failure of consideration | inadequate
consideration | unconscionable contract | transfer without consideration | formation of contract |
breach-of-contract-elements | contract elements | contract formation | contract construction | breach of
contract defenses | contract modification | void order or judgment |
VOID AND VOIDABLE CONTRACT CASES LAW
The Texas Government Code, section 82.065, entitled "Contingent Fee Contract for Legal Services,"
states,
A contingent fee contract for legal services is voidable by the client if it is procured as a result of conduct
violating the laws of this state or the Disciplinary Rules of the State Bar of Texas regarding barratry by
attorneys or other persons. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 82.065(b) (Vernon 2005). "Barratry is the solicitation of
employment to prosecute or defend a claim with intent to obtain a personal benefit." State Bar of Texas v.
Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 659 (Tex. 1994). A client may void a contingent fee contract that violates section
82.065 by expressing his intent to do so before the attorney has fully or substantially performed. Tillery &
Tillery v. Zurich Ins. Co., 54 S.W.3d 356, 359 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (citing Sanes v. Clark, 25
S.W.3d 800, 805 (Tex. App.--Waco 2000, pet. denied)).
the contingent fee contract was voidable by Cobb. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 82.065(b). Approximately one
month after signing the contingent fee contract and two weeks after the Louisiana lawyer filed suit, Cobb sent
notice to the firm stating, "Thank you for your help, but I don't need you to be my lawyer. I am returning your
check." This was sufficient to void the contingent fee contract because it occurred before the attorney fully or
substantially complied. See Tillery, 54 S.W.3d at 359; Sanes, 25 S.W.3d at 805.
The sole basis the firm alleges to support jurisdiction is the Agreement that formed the attorney-client
relationship. But the Agreement was voided by Cobb. Because the primary purpose of the Agreement --a
contingent fee agreement for legal services--was voided pursuant to the Government Code, and activity
stemming from the void Agreement was the only contact with Texas, there is no evidence to establish specific
jurisdiction. See CSR, Ltd., 925 S.W.2d at 594 (stating first requirement of personal jurisdiction is that
defendant have "contacts" with state) (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S. Ct. at 2183). Moreover, it
would violate the public policy of Texas for a court to allow enforcement of an agreement obtained in violation
of the disciplinary rules for attorneys. See In re AIU Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 109, 115 (Tex. 2004) (stating forum
selection clause obtained by fraud or overreaching or "contraven[ing] a strong public policy" of selected forum
not enforceable).
Cobbs v. Stern, Miller & Higdon (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jul. 2, 2009)(Alcala)
(denial of special appearance reversed in interlocutory appeal, attorney-client disputes and litigation,
void or voidable contract, solicitation of clients contingency fee agreement as against public policy, affidavit
testimony by interested witness, interlocutory appeal-special appearance)
REVERSE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Alcala
Before Justices Jennings, Alcala and Higley
01-09-00112-CV John L. Cobbs v. Stern, Miller & Higdon
Appeal from 151st District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Michael Engelhart
Allday Dental v. The Dental Solution (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 25, 2010)(Frost)
(contract dispute over placement fees, argument that contract is illegal and thus unenforceable rejected)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Frost
Before Justices Brock Yates, Frost and Brown
14-08-00746-CV Allday Dental & Amar Al-Kutob v. The Dental Solution
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Roberta Anne Lloyd
HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE