Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Elizabeth Ann AGOSTINI-KNOPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert KNOPS, Defendant. Jordan Glass, Nonparty Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered April 2, 2003, which, in an action for divorce, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for reimbursement of the fee paid to her former attorney, nonparty respondent on this appeal, by her former husband, defendant in this action, and for sanctions against respondent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
It appears that respondent, who was engaged by plaintiff, mediated a separation agreement between the parties, which stipulated that a legal fee of $21,000 owed by plaintiff to respondent was to be paid by defendant. Plaintiff now seeks to have respondent disgorge that fee on the ground that it was excessive and that he failed to provide her with a Statement of Client's Rights and Responsibilities or a written retainer agreement, in violation of 22 NYCRR part 1400. The motion court, while finding that respondent did not substantially comply with part 1400, properly refused to direct respondent's disgorgement of the fee since it was paid by defendant, not plaintiff, and defendant was not seeking its return. We reject plaintiff's argument that the fee was paid from marital assets, and that she would therefore have received more money under the separation agreement had the fee not been part of the bargained-for exchange, where the separation agreement provided that the parties were each retaining 100% of their respective bank accounts and investment accounts and that any joint accounts had already been divided between them. Nor does plaintiff allege frivolous conduct warranting imposition of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130.
We have considered plaintiff's other claims and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 05, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)