STRUTZ, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).I concur in the result reached by the majority. In these cases, the attorney for the defendants had entered into contingent-fee contracts with his clients for a proportionate part of any judgment recovered by him over and above the amounts which they had been offered for their land which was being taken by the plaintiff for airport purposes. Such contingent-fee contracts generally are approved. Old Equity Life Insurance Co. v. Barnard, 120 Ga.App. 596, 171 S.E.2d 636 (1969); Pocius v. Halvorsen, 30 Ill.2d 73, 195 N.E.2d 137, 13 A.L.R.3d 662 (1964).
However, while such contingent-fee arrangements may be perfectly valid and proper as between an attorney and his clients, it does not necessarily follow that such fee is a reasonable fee to be taxed against the party taking private property for a public use, as permitted under Section 32-15-32, North Dakota Century Code. I believe this fact should be stressed and it should clearly be pointed out that while in these particular cases the trial court did find the amount of the contingent fees to be reasonable, its findings were based upon the character of the services rendered, the results obtained, the customary charges for such services, and the ability and skill of the attorney rendering the services, and were not in any way based upon the fact that such attorney had been given a contingent-fee contract by his clients. The fee charged is not a reasonable fee because it is a fee which he is permitted to charge his clients under their contingent-fee agreement; it is a reasonable fee because of the character of the services rendered, the results obtained, the customary charges for such services, and the ability and skill of the attorney rendering the services. The contingent-fee agreement, in such situation, should not be considered by the trial court in determining what is a reasonable attorney fee.
With this clarification as to the reasons for affirming the findings of the trial court, I concur in the result with the majority.
TEIGEN, J., agrees with the special concurrence.