Persaud v Muoio

Holding The court affirmed the lower court’s order enforcing an oral fee-sharing agreement between two attorneys, holding that the agreement was valid and enforceable based on the objective manifestations of the parties’ intent and their subsequent conduct. The court determined that the trial counsel was entitled to 75% of the fees as agreed, rejecting the original counsel’s claim for a larger share.

The court’s words

the courts will not inquire into the precise worth of the services performed by the parties as long as each party actually contributed to the legal work

2026 NY Slip Op 05560, at the official text

Fee-sharing agreements are enforceable as long as the attorney who seeks [a] share of the fee has contributed some work, labor or service

2026 NY Slip Op 05560, at the official text

Molina sent an email in July 2021 that expressly referenced a fee-sharing agreement of 75% to KDLM and 25% to Molina

2026 NY Slip Op 05560, at the official text

the subsequent conduct of KDLM and Molina failed to demonstrate that negotiations regarding fee-sharing were still underway

2026 NY Slip Op 05560, at the official text