Preview:

HEADNOTE FRANKEL v. FRIOLO NO. 254, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT - ATTORNEYS' FEES Following the Court of Appeals' decision in Friolo v. Frankel , 373 Md. 501 (2003)(" Friolo I "), the case was remanded to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County so that the court could utilize the lodestar analysis- multiplying Friolo's counsel's reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours expended in connection with this case- and provide a clear explanation for how it determined attorneys' fees. As they had at each stage of the litigation, Friolo's counsel requested increased attorneys' fees to reflect their post-judgment and appellate work. After holding a hearing, for argument only, on Friolo's motion for attorneys' fees and costs, as well as the various supplements filed, the circuit court issued an opinion and order awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $65,348. Although the circuit court used the basic lodestar calculation and stated that it took into consideration several factors, there is no clear explanation of the factors utilized by the court in making its award as required by the Court of Appeals in Friolo I . Friolo's counsel is not entitled to "reasonable attorneys' fees" for appellate and post-judgment services unless those efforts were unrelated to (1) protecting the underlying judgment, (2) securing the specific relief afforded to the plaintiff, or (3) overturning an outright denial of attorneys' fees. Thus, the award of attorneys' fees is vacated and the case remanded to the circuit court.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0254 September Term, 2005

DOUGLAS FRANKEL, et al.

v.

JOY FRIOLO

Salmon, Krauser, Sharer, JJ.

Opinion by Sharer, J.

Filed: September 14, 2006

207350

Once again the attorneys' fee dispute between Douglas Frankel, M.D. and the Maryland Virginia Med Trauma Group, appellants/crossappellees (collectively "Frankel"), and a former employee, Joy Friolo, appellee/cross-appellant, is before us. In this current

appeal and cross-appeal we are asked to determine whether, on remand, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County properly awarded attorney's fees to Friolo, in accordance with the direction of the Court of Appeals in Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501 (2003)("Friolo I"). Moreover, we take up an issue of apparent first impression:

whether counsel is entitled to be awarded fees for post-judgment litigation in which the only complaint is counsel's dissatisfaction with the fee originally awarded by the circuit court. Frankel challenges the circuit court's fee award and presents several issues for our review, which we have distilled into:1 Whether the circuit court's attorneys' fee

1

In their brief, appellants framed the issues as follows: 1. Whether the attorneys' fee awarded to Friolo on remand is excessive on its face. Whether the attorneys' fee awarded to Friolo on remand violates Maryland Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.5. Whether the trial court factors of a lodestar mitigate a fee award. failed to apply the analysis tending to

2.

3.

4.

Whether the attorneys' fee awarded to Friolo on remand is impermissibly vague.

award complies with the lodestar analysis set forth in Friolo I. Friolo's cross-appeal presents one issue for our review which, as slightly rephrased, is: Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to award Friolo attorneys' fees for post-trial, appellate, and post-remand services. For the reasons that follow, we shall vacate the circuit court's award and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND To provide perspective for our discussion, we recount briefly the facts giving rise to the original litigation between the parties.2 Friolo was employed by Frankel in February, 1998, as a medical biller, responsible for both billing and collection. Her employment was terminated by Frankel on April 4, 1999, based upon allegations that she had treated patients rudely. In her complaint, Friolo to all

averred that she accepted an offer made by Frankel

employees, of a five percent ownership interest in the practice if the practice was worth one million dollars by the end of 1999. goal was to develop and expand the practice, make it The more

We summarize the facts from the detailed recitation in Friolo I, supra, 373 Md. at 505-509.

2

-2-

profitable, and sell it by the end of 2004.

Friolo alleged that

she also was to have received a percentage of the sales price. When she filed suit following her discharge, Friolo alleged that she worked considerable overtime hours without overtime

compensation.

She also claimed an agreement by which she was to

receive, but did not receive, on a monthly basis, a percentage of collections. Friolo filed a ten-count complaint, sounding in: (1)

breach of contract; (2) breach of an implied contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) fraudulent inducement; (5) violation of the

Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Lab. & Empl. ("LE")

Download Frankel v. Friolo.pdf

Maryland Law