Frank Martini and satanand Sharma hired James Little to represent them when sued by amber Hotel Company. Little agreed to be paid $100 an hour less than his normal fee, provided that he would have a lien against any attorney fee award. in December, the court entered judgment against amber. amber appealed. The court then amended the judgment to award Martini and Sharma $152,700 in attorney’s fees, and amber did not appeal this. Martini, Sharma, and amber negotiated about a settlement, and Little advised them of his right to the attorney’s fee award. Martini and Sharma signed a settlement agreement by which amber agreed to dismiss its appeal, and the plaintiffs agreed to abandon the fee award. The parties did not inform Little. He sued amber for intentionally interfering with the performance of a contract. should he recover?

When a third party intentionally interferes with a contract between two other parties, causing one of the contract parties to break the contract and also causing a loss to one of the contract parties, the third party commits the tort of interfering with a contract.

As per the case, JL had a contract with his clients, M and S. The contract stated that JL would represent MS in a suit against AH. In return, MS would pay JL a rate less than normal, however JL would also have a lien against any attorney fee award.

AH interfered with the contract between JL and MS. Specifically, after the court had awarded attorney fees, AH negotiated a settlement with MS, in which MS agreed not to accept any attorney fee award. This settlement interrupted the contract between JL and MS. M and S broke their contract with JL by agreeing not to accept attorney fees, and caused a financial loss to JL.

There are two reasons that concluded that AH acted intentionally by interrupting the contract between JL and MS. They are listed below:

JL informed them of his lien on the attorney fee award before AR the opposition and the defendant. MS negotiated their settlement. Thus. AH had prior knowledge that JL's contract with MS included attorney fees.

AH did not inform JL of the settlement or that MS agreed to give up attorney fees.

The above two reason shows that AH intentionally interfered with the contract between JL and MS. Hence, JL would recover the requisite damages.

Based on the above analysis. JL can assert a valid claim against AH for the intentional interference with a contract and JL should recover.

If the case occurred in a state where the third party interference must also be improper. JL should still recover. Although AH's settlement with MS was a valid and legal way for

AH to protect its self-interests, the fact that AH failed to inform JL about the settlement or about the loss of attorney fees, supports the inference that AH was being deceptive and acting improperly. Thus, a court would conclude that AH's interference was improper and JL should recover.

im going to come back to you?