Markel Hutchins sought compensation from the Cochran Firm for public-relations and media work connected to litigation arising from Atlanta police officers’ fatal shooting of Kathryn Johnston. The trial court granted summary judgment to the firm on several claims, but Hutchins appealed only the quantum-meruit/unjust-enrichment claim and its related attorney-fee claim; the tortious-interference, fraud, Georgia RICO, and related fee rulings were not appealed. The Court of Appeals held that Hutchins’s general activism, media appearances, and efforts to create public pressure did not support recovery absent evidence that those activities benefited the firm or were requested or knowingly accepted by it. But evidence that firm personnel requested or used specific services—including drafting or reviewing statements and press releases and attending the settlement press conference—created jury questions about request or knowing acceptance, distinct benefit, unjust nonpayment, and Hutchins’s expectation of compensation. The Estate’s settlement did not automatically bar a separate claim for a benefit received by the firm. The court therefore reversed summary judgment on the specific quantum-meruit/unjust-enrichment claim and the derivative attorney-fee claim, while affirming the fee ruling as to other claims. It did not decide any claim Hutchins may have had against the Estate because he had not shown that he raised that issue below. Chief Judge Phipps and Presiding Judge Ellington concurred in the judgment only.