concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in parts I and III of the majority opinion but dissent as to Part II.
Somewhat parenthetically with respect to my concurrence in Part I, it could be argued that the attorney/client relationship does not fall within the intended scope of I.C. 34-1-2-1.5 dealing with employment contracts. The parties, however, seem to concede the application of the statute to this relationship. In this respect I fully concur in the Court’s interpretation of the statute. Nevertheless, the claim might be considered as in the nature of a suit on account. See Building Systems, Inc. v. Rochester Metal Products, Inc. (1976) 3d Dist., 168 Ind.App. 12, 340 N.E.2d 791. O’Neill’s claim was well within the six year statute of limitations applicable to actions on account. I.C. 34-1-2-1 (West’s Ann. Code.1983).
I dissent from the Court’s decision in part II. The opinion seems to unduly expand the principle of damages “ascertainable in accordance with the fixed rules of evidence and known standards of value.” Majority opinion, p. 177. Here, the fees are not ascertainable by mere calculation because the number of hours spent and the rate applied are subject to the reasonableness test. That the trial court did not consider the hourly rate claimed by O’Neill to be reasonable or applicable here, demonstrates that the damages could not be established by mere mathematical computation.
Furthermore, as acknowledged by the majority opinion, the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5(a) sets forth eight variable factors which may affect the reasonableness of a fee. The very subjective nature of these variables compels my conclusion that the allowable fee is not a mere matter of mathematical computation. Accordingly, I would disallow prejudgment interest upon the litigation fees.
I would affirm the judgment with respect to the fees awarded O’Neill and the rejection of the bank’s claim but would reverse *181the award of prejudgment interest to O’Neill.