DALLAS — An attorney did not prove his claim against a former client, the Fifth Court of Appeals ruled, wiping an award of more than $51,000 in damages and fees.
Court records show Syed Ali hired attorney Tailim Song of the Tailim Song Law Firm after he was sued.
Song eventually withdrew from the representation for nonpayment, and claims Ali still owes him $36,788.90 under the parties’ fee agreement, an amount he refused to pay.
Song sued Ali, asserting claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit. He later moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court signed a final summary judgment in Song’s favor.
The judgment found Ali liable on all three legal theories pleaded by Song, and it recites that Song elected to recover for breach of contract, awarding him damages of $36,788.90, attorney’s fees of $15,147.50, and additional conditional appellate attorney’s fees.
Court records show the trial court concluded that Song’s summary-judgment affidavits were sufficient on their own to conclusively prove Song’s claim.
Ali appealed, challenging the summary judgment.
The Fifth Court concluded Song’s affidavit evidence is conclusory and insufficient to support the summary judgment. Justices also found that Song failed to prove as a matter of law every element of his breach-of-contract claim.
“The parts of Song’s summary-judgment affidavits purporting to establish the elements of his claim are brief,” the opinion states. “We conclude that … passages from Song’s summary-judgment affidavits are conclusory and thus not competent evidence of the conclusions stated.
“For example, Song did not file a copy of his written fee agreement (if any) with Ali, nor do the affidavits give any details about the agreement’s terms or Ali’s obligations under the agreement. Nor do the affidavits give any indication of how the $36,788.90 figure was calculated beyond indicating that Ali was billed on an hourly basis.”
The appellate court denied Ali’s request for sanctions.
Appeals case No. 05-25-00675-CV
