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.
Bala Hari PILLAI, plaintiff, v. Kathleen PILLAI, respondent; Renee E. Schell, nonparty-appellant.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant's former attorney, Renee E. Schell, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated October 20, 2003, as, upon renewal and after a hearing, adhered to its original determination in an order dated April 30, 2003, denying her motion to establish a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 in the amount of $29,367.75.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court, upon renewal, properly adhered to its original determination denying the appellant's motion to establish a charging lien since the appellant failed to demonstrate that she substantially complied with the rules governing the conduct of matrimonial attorneys. The appellant failed to establish that she provided the respondent with a statement of the client's rights and responsibilities (see Bishop v. Bishop, 295 A.D.2d 382, 383, 743 N.Y.S.2d 724; Hunt v. Hunt, 273 A.D.2d 875, 876, 709 N.Y.S.2d 744), filed the retainer agreement with the court (see Wagman v. Wagman, 8 A.D.3d 263, 777 N.Y.S.2d 678; Mulcahy v. Mulcahy, 285 A.D.2d 587, 728 N.Y.S.2d 90), or provided the respondent with itemized bills at least every 60 days (see Bishop v. Bishop, supra at 383, 743 N.Y.S.2d 724; Julien v. Machson, 245 A.D.2d 122, 666 N.Y.S.2d 147), as required by 22 NYCRR 1400.2 and 1400.3.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 14, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)