Central Progressive Bank v. Bradley
Central Progressive Bank v. Bradley, 502 So. 2d 1017 (La. 1987).
Cited by
- Roy M. Bowes D/B/A Roy M. Bowes and Associates Versus Michael H. McIntire La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
- James K Fawvor v. Edmund E. Caswell, III. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- Succession of Sigur v. Henritzy 126 So. 3d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
- Hollenshead Oil & Gas, LLC v. Gemini Explorations, Inc. 44 So. 3d 809 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
- In Re Succession of Bankston 844 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
- Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin 806 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
- Harvey v. BE & K CONST. 770 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
- GULF COAST BANK & TRUST v. Donnaud's Inc. 759 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
- National Information Services v. Gottsegen 737 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
- Miller v. Irshaid Inc. 692 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
- Wallace v. Nathan 678 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
- Warner v. Carimi Law Firm 678 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Leenerts Farms, Inc. v. Rogers 421 So. 2d 216
- City of Baton Rouge v. Stauffer Chemical Co. 500 So. 2d 397
- Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc. 373 So. 2d 102
Opinion text
502 So.2d 1017 (1987) CENTRAL PROGRESSIVE BANK v. Sherry Wyatt BRADLEY, et al. No. 86-C-2242. Supreme Court of Louisiana. February 13, 1987. PER CURIAM. La.Civ.Code Art. 2000 attempts to regulate attorney fees by stating that "[i]f the parties, by written contract, have expressly agreed that the obligor shall also be liable for the obligee's attorney fees in a fixed or determinable amount, the obligee is entitled to that amount as well." La. Const. art. 5, § 5(B) provides that the supreme court has exclusive original jurisdiction of disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar. The supreme court has a duty to assert that authority to regulate the practice of law. We held in Leenerts Farms, Inc. v. Rogers, 421 So.2d 216 (La.1982), that the prohibition against a lawyer accepting a "clearly excessive fee" found in Disciplinary Rule 2-106 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, cannot be abrogated by a provision in a note fixing the amount of attorney fees as a percentage of the amount to be collected. This prohibition likewise cannot be abrogated by a law fixing the amount of attorney fees as a percentage of the amount to be collected. City of Baton Rouge v. Stauffer Chemical Company, 500 So.2d 397 (La., 1987). See also Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 373 So.2d 102 (La.1979). Since art. 2000 attempts to regulate attorney fees, it will not be enforced when the attorney fees fixed by the parties are excessive and unreasonable. Notwithstanding art. 2000, the courts may inquire into the reasonableness of such a fee. Accordingly, judgment of the court of appeal is reversed. The case is remanded to the court of appeal to review the trial *1018 court's judgment setting reasonable attorney fees.