Rhoades

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and respondent Rufus von Thulen Rhoades (Rhoades) served as an attorney for defendant and appellant William Lansdale (Lansdale), including for Lansdale’s corporation,1 for over 40 years. In 2005, Rhoades and Lansdale executed a letter agreement pursuant to which Lansdale agreed to pay Rhoades, upon the happening of certain contingencies, $3,000,000 for past attorney services rendered. In 2010, after Rhoades had not received any payment under the letter agreement, he sued Lansdale and Financial Corporation. Following trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Rhoades, awarding him $3,000,000 for, inter alia, breach of the letter agreement, and the trial court entered judgment on that breach of contract claim. On appeal, Lansdale and Financial Corporation challenge, inter alia, the denial of their motion for new trial, contending that the judgment on the contract claim is contrary to law because the letter agreement did not comply with certain statutory requirements and was therefore voidable at the client’s election. In response, Rhoades argues that Lansdale and Financial Corporation expressly waived their right to void the letter agreement under the…