With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to try to anticipate and estimate a return on contingency fees; thus, they held no value for purposes of equitable distribution. Id. at 554. However, this Court recognized that contingency fees would be treated as income or a component of an earning capacity for alimony or support determinations. Id. Both Lamparski and Beasley focus on the value of contingency fees at a particular date: date of death and date of separation/trial, respectively. Their holdings that contingency fees are too speculative as of the date of valuation make sense when the court must determine value .App.1998) (pending contingency fee files are uncompleted transactions of the firm and part of winding up and fees earned are assets of the firm); Gull v. Van Epps, 185 Wis.2d 609, 517 N.W.2d 531, 536 (App.1994) (<HOLDING>). Notably, we acknowledge that at least one

A: holding that a defendant is not entitled to relief from default judgment because notice to an attorney of filing of motions and orders is constructive notice to the client even when the client did not have actual notice
B: holding partners of dissolved firm are entitled to share in fees for predissolution cases earned after dissolution even when the client exercises its right to choose an attorney
C: holding that upon dissolution of partnership of attorneys fees collected for work on cases prior to dissolution should be divided among former partners but fees for work done after dissolution went to individual partner who performed the work
D: holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client
B.