In an October 26, 2011 decision by Justice Bucaria the court denied cross-motions for summary judgment finding that issues of fact precluded dismissing either parties’ claims. The dispute arose from National Grid’s retention of the defendant law firm to commence replevin actions to seize and recover utility meters from non-paying customers, in addition to other legal work. National Grid agreed to pay the law firm a set monthly retainer for this work, over a set period of time. National Grid terminated the retainer agreement during its term. Normally a client can terminate an attorney’s employment without cause and not be subject to a claim for breach of contract. An exception to this general rule is when the parties have entered into a “general retainer” agreement – an agreement “for a fixed period of time to perform legal services in relation to matters that may arise during the period of the contract.” A client will be held liable for breaching a “general retainer” unless it terminated the attorney for cause. The court found that there were issues of fact as to whether National Grid terminated the law firm for cause because it had a good faith reasonable basis to doubt the law firm’s capacity to perform the work contemplated under the retainer or whether National Grid terminated the retainer because they wanted to retain other counsel at a reduced cost.
National Grid Cop. Serv., LLC v. LeSchak & Grodensky, P.C. Sup Ct, Nassau County, October 26, 2011, Bucaria, J, Index No. 8330/09.