In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided a significant case involving attorney fees. The court ruled in favor of the Licatesi Law Group, LLP (LLG), awarding them 100% of the attorney fees from a personal injury settlement. This decision affects the law firm involved in the case and sets a precedent for how attorney fees can be apportioned in similar disputes.

The case, titled Matter of Licatesi Law Group, LLP v. Bachu, Bedesi & Nguyen, was decided on November 4, 2026, under docket number 2025-02111. The dispute arose from a personal injury claim related to a motor vehicle accident. This ruling is important because it clarifies how courts can determine the distribution of attorney fees when multiple law firms are involved in a case.

Background

The parties in this case include the Licatesi Law Group, LLP, which represented a client injured in a car accident, and Bachu, Bedesi & Nguyen (BBN), the law firm that later took over the case. The conflict began when LLG, under a contingency fee agreement, secured a $100,000 settlement from the insurance company of the driver responsible for the accident. Under the agreement, LLG was entitled to 33⅓% of any recovery from the case.

After LLG achieved the settlement, they received a letter from Tony B. Nguyen of BBN, indicating that BBN would be substituting in as the new counsel for the client. Following this, the insurance company disbursed the settlement funds directly to BBN, which then retained the entire attorney fee. This led LLG to file a petition under Judiciary Law § 475, seeking to apportion the attorney fees fairly.

The case made its way through the legal system, culminating in a hearing before the Supreme Court of Nassau County. The court had to evaluate the contributions of both law firms to determine how the attorney fees should be divided. LLG argued that they were solely responsible for securing the settlement, while BBN contended that they had a right to the fees as the client's new counsel.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division ruled in favor of LLG, affirming the lower court's decision to award them 100% of the net contingency fee from the settlement. The court noted, "The issue of apportionment of an attorney's fee is controlled by the circumstances and equities of each particular case, and the trial court is in the best position to assess such factors." The judges emphasized that the lower court had properly considered the time spent by each attorney on the case and the nature of the work performed.

The court found that LLG had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the settlement was achieved solely through their efforts. They noted that BBN failed to present any time records or evidence of their contributions to the case, which weakened their position. The judges stated, "Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding LLG 100% of the net contingency fee." This ruling underscores the importance of documentation and evidence in cases involving attorney fee disputes.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for attorneys and law firms involved in similar disputes over fee apportionment. It reinforces the principle that the court will look closely at the contributions of each attorney to a case when determining how to divide fees. The decision also highlights the necessity for attorneys to maintain thorough records of their work on cases, as failure to do so can jeopardize their claims to fees.

Furthermore, this case sheds light on the legal framework surrounding contingency fee agreements in New York. It clarifies that even when a new attorney takes over a case, the original attorney can still claim entitlement to fees if they can demonstrate their contributions to securing a settlement. The ruling may serve as a precedent for future cases where multiple attorneys are involved, influencing how similar disputes are resolved in the future.

What's Next

As of now, it is unclear if the appellants, BBN, intend to appeal this decision. If they choose to pursue further legal action, the case could potentially move to a higher court for review. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending or additional appeals. The outcome of this case may continue to influence attorney fee disputes in New York and beyond.