Shirley Arnett and Bobby Arnett V‪.‬

Samuel A. Goldblatt and Fox, Goldblatt & Singer, Inc., attorneys, and Brown, Crouppen, Walther and Zwibelman, P.C., attorneys, appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis distributing attorneys' fees pursuant to a structured settlement in a medical malpractice action. The plaintiffs in the underlying malpractice action entered into a contingent fee contract with Samuel A. Goldblatt and the firm of Fox, Goldblatt & Singer, Inc. (hereinafter Mr. Goldblatt) to prosecute their claim. The contract was originally for one-half of all amounts received from defendants; later amended to one-third. Mr. Goldblatt proceeded with the case, interviewing the clients, securing and receiving medical records and other materials, discussing the case with four doctors, and preparing and filing the petition. Later, Mr. Goldblatt was discharged without cause by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs then retained the firm of Brown, Crouppen, Walther and Zwibelman, P.C. (hereinafter Mr. Zwibelman) under a one-third contingency agreement to represent them in the malpractice action. The agreement also obligated Mr. Zwibelman to pay any amount due to Mr. Goldblatt out of Mr. Zwibelman's fees. Subsequently, the plaintiffs and defendants in the malpractice action entered into a structured settlement having a present value of $2,250,000.00. Mr. Goldblatt and Mr. Zwibelman filed motions to distribute the attorneys' fees. Attorneys' fees were one-third of the settlement, $750,000.00. The trial court awarded $125,000.00, plus $1,015.71 out-of-pocket expenses to Mr. Goldblatt and the balance to Mr. Zwibelman. Mr. Zwibelman appeals contending the trial court erred in: (1) misapplying the law, and (2) awarding excessive attorneys' fees to Mr. Goldblatt because there was insufficient evidence to support the award. Mr. Goldblatt cross-appeals claiming the trial court erred in: (1) relying on a misinterpretation of the evidence to assess the value of Mr. Goldblatt's services, and (2) granting an insufficient award because the weight of the evidence supports a higher award. We affirm.