to question whether Barroso and Altura were in a position to make informed decisions about their representation. See Overseas Shipholding, 547 F.Supp.2d at 87-88. Both men were foreign nationals who were sufficiently indigent to quality for , court-appointed counsel. Further, both were out at sea when they signed the agreements and were disadvantaged in their ability to shop around for other representation. Although both were competent to retain counsel (as we describe below), the information discrepancy between Hawthorn and his clients suggests that Barroso and Altura were not in a position to make an informed decision about the appropriate level of compensation or to “shop around for other representation.” Id. at 87; see Schlesinger v. Teitelbaum, 475 F.2d 137, 140 (3d Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>); In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 574
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 without mentioning cotnam that settlement portion paid to attorneys pursuant to contingent fee was income to client holding that contingent fee agreements were subject to heightened scrutiny because of the vulnerabilities of seamen holding that public policy considerations require that the burden be placed on the attorney to provide for allocation of courtawarded attorneys fees in the contingent fee agreement 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