duty on one of the parties in favor of the third party; and (8) the performance of the terms of the contract render a direct benefit to the third party intended by the parties to the contract. Id. The intent of the parties to benefit the third party is the controlling factor and this may be shown by naming the third party or by other evidence. Id. Further, "[wlhere there is an agreement that compensation is to be paid but the price is not fixed, the party furnishing services and materials in performance of the contract is entitled to the reasonable value thereof." Ind. Bell Tel. Co. v. Ice Serv., Inc., 142 Ind.App. 23, 29, 281 N.E.2d 820, 824 (1967). Pearman's complaint indicates that he was acting as the Sisons' attorney and did a significant amount of work for th 78 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>), trams. denied. Consequently, we conclude that
holding that contingency fee contracts are voidable where attorneys fail to comply with disciplinary rules holding that an attorney was entitled to a quantum meruit recovery even though his oral contingency fee agreement with the client violated the ind rules of professional conduct which require a contingency fee agreement to be in writing 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 a law firm could intervene in a former clients action to protect its interest in its contingency fee holding contingency fee cases commenced prior to dissolution are assets of the firm