context: The ordinary rule of construction of contingent fee contracts is that, in the absence of an express provision which addresses possible appeal, services rendered by an attorney in upholding a judgment on appeal are within the undertaking under the contingent fee contract. The attorney is not entitled to any additional compensation for such appellate representation, even if the reasonable value of all of the services rendered through the successful, final outcome on appeal exceeds the fee calculated under the contingent fee agreement.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.parenthetical: agreement to defend against challenge to client's entitlement to property, with increase in fee "contingent upon the result of the trial," construed not to include services as appellee's counsel
citation_a.sentence: But see In re Wise, 172 A.D. 491, 158 N.Y.S. 793 (1916) (agreement to defend against challenge to client’s entitlement to property, with increase in fee “contingent upon the result of the trial,” construed not to include services as appellee’s counsel).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: contract for services in case pending on appeal in Second Circuit, with fee contingent on reversal, includes services on post-opinion motions and before United States Supreme Court
citation_b.sentence: See In re Laughlin, 265 F.2d 377 (D.C.Cir.1959); Salinger v. Mason, 194 F. 882, 114 C.C.A. 300 (8th Cir.1912); Tuttle v. Claflin, 88 F. 122, 31 C.C.A. 419 (2d Cir.1898) (contract for services in case pending on appeal in Second Circuit, with fee contingent on reversal, includes services on post-opinion motions and before United States Supreme Court); Jackson v. Campbell, 215 Cal. 103, 8 P.2d 845 (1932); Pocius v. Halvorsen, 30 Ill.2d 73, 195 N.E.2d 137 (1963); Bounougias v. Peters, 49 Ill.App.2d 138, 198 N.E.2d 142 (1964); Knight v. DeMarea, 670 S.W.2d 59 (Mo.App.1984); Quarture v. Allegheny County, 141 Pa.Super. 356, 14 A.2d 575 (1940); Ward v. Richards & Rossano, Inc., 51 Wash.App. 423, 754 P.2d 120 (1988).