FOLLOW US

A Second Circuit panel has unraveled a attorney harassment lawyer $100K lien previously granted to the lawyer who represented a former Marriott banquet worker in a race-based harassment suit, ruling that the district court failed to confront key arguments about whether the requested amount was truly justified.

Jury Cleared Marriott but Hit Union Delegate With $400K Verdict

The unpublished opinion, released Thursday, follows a March 2023 jury verdict that exonerated Marriott International Inc. of liability for allegedly permitting harassment against Egyptian-born former waiter Gebrial Rasmy. The jury instead found a union delegate responsible for unlawful retaliation and awarded Rasmy $400,000.

Before that trial, Rasmy hired attorney Michael Diederich in February 2022—then dismissed him eight months later. That firing launched the fight over fees. The district court awarded Diederich a $100,000 charging lien for his work, concluding it fell below the one-third contingency fee outlined in the retainer and less than the roughly $122,000 recorded in his billing.

Diederich, who had urged Rasmy to take Marriott’s $250,000 settlement offer, said Friday that his prediction had proved accurate: “He was, in my opinion, very lucky to have won against his co-worker.”

Panel: Loss of Confidence Alone Is Not ‘Cause’

Rasmy argued that losing confidence in his attorney was enough to show he fired Diederich “for cause,” thus eliminating any fee obligations. The panel rejected that argument and said the district court did not need to consider every hypothetical reason for a “for-cause” termination.

He also claimed the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing, but the panel said he waived that point by never requesting one.

Diederich praised the ruling in his favor, saying, “A client cannot refuse to pay his or her lawyer simply for giving sound, but unwanted, legal advice.”

Court Says Fee Analysis Was Too Thin to Stand

While the Second Circuit agreed the firing wasn’t for cause, it nevertheless tossed the six-figure lien back to the district court for deeper analysis. The judges said it was unclear whether the lower court properly assessed the full spectrum of New York law’s required factors for determining a fair fee.

The panel noted that the court briefly referenced the contingency-fee percentage but neglected to weigh surrounding context—such as case complexity, time expended, customary local rates, the stage of litigation, and the ultimate results achieved.

The panel also faulted the court for overlooking one of Rasmy’s major contentions: that “nearly all the discovery and motion practice” had been completed before Diederich ever joined the case.

“In sum, because the district court did not address ‘the various factors generally considered when determining a quantum meruit recovery,’ we conclude that the charging lien should be vacated,” the panel wrote, sending the matter back down for a fresh look.