context: Sweeney states that after Brockington left F & W Sweeney discharged the firm in order to continue her attorney-client relationship with Brockington, Hinton, Butters, and Ponsoldt. Because F & W was discharged prior to the realization of the contingency, Sweeney argues that F & W should be relegated to quantum meruit recovery.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 906 F.2d 652, 652
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that rights under contingency fee contracts are governed by state law
citation_a.sentence: See also Zaklama, 906 F.2d at 652 (stating that rights under contingency fee contracts are governed by state law).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that a discharged firm's recovery is limited to quantum meruit
citation_b.sentence: Myszka v. Henson & Henson, P.C., 170 Ga.App. 878, 318 S.E.2d 672, 673 (1984) (holding that a discharged firm’s recovery is limited to quantum meruit).