Robertson v. Gordon

Background

Two lawyers made a written agreement in March 1906 to split equally any attorney fees paid from money appropriated for the Colville Indian claim, and one lawyer advanced $150 for travel to Washington to pursue the claim. Congress later set aside money for the Indians and the Court of Claims awarded sums to lawyers, allocating a larger amount to one lawyer and a small amount to the other. The smaller-amount lawyer filed this suit to enforce the March agreement, seek an equal share of the larger award, and obtain a lien and repayment of the $150 advance.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the March contract covered sums ultimately allowed and whether later agreements or the Court of Claims judgment wiped out that private deal. The Court held the March agreement had clear meaning and applied to the amounts determined by Congress and the Court of Claims. The judges rejected the idea that the contract depended on getting a new contract with the tribe, and found there was sufficient work done so the arrangement had valid consideration. The later April agreements did not supersede the March deal. The Court also explained the Court of Claims proceeding was meant to fix the total sum to be paid out of the appropriation and did not decide private distribution among all individual lawyers.

Real world impact

The ruling enforces the private fee-sharing promise and lets the smaller-amount lawyer recover an equal share and a lien on the larger award plus the $150 repayment. It clarifies that a statutory award by the Court of Claims does not automatically extinguish private agreements among lawyers who were not parties to that proceeding.