on these elements are reviewed for clear error. See Aladdin Elec. Assocs. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 645 A.2d 1142, 1144 (Me.1994). [¶ 14] “[T]he most significant element of the doctrine [of unjust enrichment] is whether the enrichment of the defendant is unjust.” Styer v. Hugo, 422 Pa.Super. 262, 619 A.2d 347, 350 (1993). A successor attorney will almost always retain some benefit from the work of the predecessor attorney. Retention of that benefit, however, will rarely be unjust because the predecessor attorney can and should protect his or her right to be compensated by the client. Id. at 350. Although we need not decide under what circumstances retention of the benefit by the successor attorney may be unjust, see, e.g., Galanis v. Lyons & Truitt, 715 N.E.2d 858, 863 (Ind.1999) (<HOLDING>), no such circumstances exist here. [¶ 15]
holding provision in attorneys fee contract requiring client that terminated contract to immediately pay attorney fee equal to present value of attorneys interest in case was inconsistent with public policy and unconscionable holding that an attorney violated mlrpc 84d by faffing to inform his client of the dismissal of his clients complaint holding that where a successor attorney fails to inform the client of the clients duty to pay the predecessor attorney the successor assumes the obligation to pay the first lawyers fee out of his or her contingent fee holding that aln attorney who is employed under a contingent fee contract and discharged pri or to the occurrence of the contingency is limited to quantum meruit recovery for the reasonable value of the services rendered to the client and may not recover the full amount of the agreed contingent fee holding that where a contract for legal services fails to expressly provide for the amount of the fee a reasonable fee is implied