Jenai Hayes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty.

── Jenai Hayes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0242n.06 No. 25-6091 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) JENAI HAYES, et al., ) FILED Plaintiffs ) May 28, 2026 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk BRIAN CHRISTOPHER WINFREY, ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF ) THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, ) TENNESSEE TENNESSEE, et al., ) Defendants ) OPINION ) ANN BUNTIN STEINER; JESSE F. ) HARBISON, ) Defendants-Appellees. ) Before: SILER, NALBANDIAN, and HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judges. HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns a dispute among former co- counsel over the terms of an oral fee agreement. Ann Steiner and Jesse Harbison litigated the underlying case for nearly five years before Brian Winfrey joined their team. After the case settled, the lawyers gave conflicting accounts of Winfrey’s compensation terms. The district court held evidentiary hearings to resolve the matter, credited Steiner and Harbison’s account, and awarded No. 25-6091, Hayes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. Winfrey fees on that basis. We affirm the district court’s fee award and deny Steiner and Harbison’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees. I This fee dispute arose from a lawsuit by five school administrators against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville. Ann Steiner and Jesse Harbison litigated the case for around five years. With trial approaching, they asked Brian Winfrey to join the plaintiffs’ litigation team. He agreed during a June 2, 2025, meeting, but the parties never memorialized his compensation terms in writing. The case unexpectedly settled roughly five weeks later—a development Winfrey attributes to his addition to the case. Tensions over attorneys’ fees surfaced immediately. Harbison, Steiner, and Winfrey disputed the terms of their oral contract, prompting Winfrey to file notice of a charging lien on the settlement proceeds. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-2-103. Harbison and Steiner asked the district court to adjudicate the fee dispute and moved with the original settling parties to deposit the contested funds with the district court. The district court accepted the funds and held two evidentiary hearings to resolve the conflict. At the first hearing, the attorneys offered different versions of the agreement reached on June 2. Winfrey testified that Steiner and Harbison promised him the greater of (i) one-third of all attorneys’ fees or (ii) his fee petition, both contingent on the case’s ultimate success. He claimed that during a post-settlement phone call, Steiner reiterated that promise and assured him that he would be paid one-third of all fees. Steiner and Harbison offered a different account. They testified that the agreement was strictly for $700 an hour. Both emphasized that they would not have surrendered one-third of the fee award to an attorney joining on the eve