Legal Journal Editor’s Opinion on the Nielsen vs. Tremblay & Smith PLLC case

The Circuit Court’s Decision Affirmed Based on the Record

In the case of Nielsen vs. Tremblay & Smith PLLC, or T&S, the circuit court found that T&S breached the legal services contract on Oct. 1, 2020, relieving Nielsen of any obligation to pay attorneys’ fees incurred after that date. This decision was affirmed on appeal as being supported by the record.

David Nielsen hired T&S to represent him in custody and divorce proceedings. When Nielsen stopped paying T&S’s invoices, T&S sued him for breach of their legal services contract. Nielsen claimed that T&S breached the agreement first through deficient performance.

The circuit court found that T&S breached the contract on Oct. 1, 2020, and ruled that Nielsen was not required to pay attorney’s fees after that date. On appeal, Nielsen argued that the breach happened in July 2020. However, the court found that the circuit court’s determination was supported by evidence on the record.

The Email Evidence Presented by Nielsen

Nielsen introduced emails from October 2020 that showed him asking his attorney if the calendar he gave to their office was presented to the judge. The attorney replied that the calendar was presented in argument and in the order that they proposed. Despite Nielsen’s testimony that he supplied the calendar before the July hearing, and that he expected it to be provided to the court for consideration at that time, he did not say that he specifically told his attorney to present the calendar then.

The court concluded that T&S “breached the rules of professional responsibility in diligence, candor, and communication” when the attorney “was less than forthright” in his email response to Nielsen. However, without any other evidence presented about T&S’s performance in July 2020, the court did not find any basis to conclude that the breach occurred earlier than Oct. 1, 2020.

Unclean Hands Doctrine Argument by Nielsen

Nielsen also argued that the “unclean hands” doctrine prevented T&S from collecting any payment for legal services rendered from July 2020 through Oct. 1, 2020. However, the court did not find any evidence presented to support the application of the equitable “unclean hands” doctrine in this case. The circuit court’s decision was upheld based on the record.

Expert Opinion: No Error by the Circuit Court

Having carefully reviewed the arguments and evidence presented in the Nielsen vs. Tremblay & Smith PLLC case, it is the opinion of this legal journal editor that the circuit court’s decision, finding that T&S breached the legal services contract on Oct. 1, 2020, was affirmed correctly based on the record. It is also the opinion of this editor that there was no merit to Nielsen’s arguments that T&S breached the contract in July 2020 or that the “unclean hands” doctrine should have applied to prevent T&S from collecting payment for legal services.

Keywords: Legal Journal, Opinion, Circuit Court Decision, Nielsen, Tremblay & Smith PLLC, Legal Contract, Attorneys’ Fees, Breach, Deficient Performance, Email Evidence, Rules of Professional Responsibility, Diligence, Candor, Communication, Unclean Hands Doctrine, Equitable Relief, Appellate Opinion.

Originally Post From https://valawyersweekly.com/2024/06/03/contract-law-firms-deficient-performance-breached-agreement/

Read more about this topic at
Breach of Contract Explained: Types and Consequences
breach of contract | Wex – Law.Cornell.Edu