Danzing v Danzing
Citation: Washington Court of Appeals, 904 P.2d 312 (1995)
Parties: Steven Danzing (P), Jefferey Danzing (D)
Substantive Facts: Steven Danzig (plaintiff) was approached by an attorney, Jeffrey Danzig
(defendant), to solicit legal clients in exchange for one-third of the client’s fee.
- Washington law prohibited attorneys from entering this type of agreement.
-Additionally, these agreements were a violation of the rules of professional conduct for
attorneys in the State of Washington.
-Steven solicited several clients and billed Jeffrey at an hourly rate that always approximately
equaled one-third of the client’s fee.
-In March 1993, Steven solicited a client for Jeffery but was not paid.
-One-third of the fee for this client would have been approximately $89,000.
Procedural Facts: Steven sued Jeffrey for breach of contract.
-Jeffery filed motion to dismiss
-The trial court dismissed the lawsuit because the contract was illegal.
-Steven appealed to the Washington Court of Appeal
Arguments: Steven- trial ct erred in granting jefferys motion to dismiss on the basis that stevens
pleading did not state a claim upon which relief may be granted
-Jeffrey: RCW 9.12.010 criminalizes stevens conduct
-Jefferey: stevens admission in his complaint that he submitted billing statements falsely
detailing hours worked is evidence of moral fault and a reasonable person should have deduced
the alleged contract was improper
-Jeffrey: public policy would best be served by sending a message to potential runners that their
efforts will not be rewarded
-Jeffrey: he did virtually all the work resulting in the fee at issue
Issue: Whether the in pari delicto rule bars a claim for payment against an attorney by a runner
where the employment of such a person by an attorney violates both the law and the legal
professions rules of professional responsibility?
- Will a contract that is illegal or against public policy be enforced by courts?
Holding: Taken as true the allegations in stevens complaint state a claim upon which relief may
be granted
-trial ct erred in granting the motion to dismiss
Rule: contracts which are illegal or against the public policy will not be enforced by the courts
-exception: where a court determines the parties are not in pari delicto that is they are not equally
culpable
Reasoning: Jeffrey was prohibited from entering into the agreement by state law and by the
rules of professional conduct that apply to attorneys.
-These prohibitions do not apply to Steven’s conduct as a non-attorney.
-While Steven did submit false billing statements, Steven’s moral fault is not as great as
Jeffrey’s.
-The transaction has already occurred, and refusing to enforce the contract will not further
protect the public.
-Therefore, the contract should be enforced.
Judgement or Disposition: reversed and remanded
Notes: