context: I would therefore hold that when a lawyer breaches his or her fiduciary duty to the client, the client has an absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship. And that right cannot be burdened by any claim from the lawyer for compensation or other damages.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 387 N.W.2d 412, 417
citation_a.parenthetical: authorizing only partial forfeiture of previously earned fees when there is no bad faith involved, no actual harm to the client and "particularly where there are multiple potential plaintiffs"
citation_a.sentence: But see Gilchrist v. Perl, 387 N.W.2d 412, 417 (Minn.1986) (authorizing only partial forfeiture of previously earned fees when there is no bad faith involved, no actual harm to the client and “particularly where there are multiple potential plaintiffs”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 145 Minn. 281, 284
citation_b.parenthetical: "[Because] the client has the right to terminate the relation of attorney and client at any time[,] ... it follows as a natural consequence that [the client] cannot be compelled to pay damages for exercising that right .... "
citation_b.sentence: See Lawler v. Dunn, 145 Minn. 281, 284, 176 N.W. 989, 990 (1920) (“[Because] the client has the right to terminate the relation of attorney and client at any time[,] ... it follows as a natural consequence that [the client] cannot be compelled to pay damages for exercising that right .... ”); cf. Perl v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 345 N.W.2d 209, 212 (Minn.1984) (“The law treats a client’s right to an attorney’s loyalty as a kind of ‘absolute’ right in the sense that if the attorney breaches his or her fiduciary duty to the client, the client is deemed injured even if no actual loss results.”); Rice v. Perl, 320 N.W.2d 407, 411 (Minn.1982) (holding that an attorney who breaches a fiduciary duty to a client forfeits his right to compensation without any requirement that the client prove actual harm).