In Re Polybutylene Plumbing Litigation
The case addresses whether a trial judge can unilaterally modify attorneys' fee contracts in mass tort litigation outside of class action rules. Appellants, a coalition of 49 law firms, challenged a trial court's order reducing their contingent fees in a polybutylene plumbing settlement. The trial court, acting *sua sponte*, deemed the aggregate fees excessive despite the absence of fraud, fiduciary breach, or client incapacity claims. The Court of Appeals examined the applicability of general contract law, class action principles, the common fund doctrine, and inherent judicial authority. The appellate court concluded that none of these exceptions allowed for the modification of valid, fully-performed attorney-client contracts, thereby reversing the trial court's decision regarding attorneys' fees.