An account stated claim for fees is one in which the attorney says:  "I’ve billed you, and sent invoices on a regular basis.  You did not object.  Since you did not object, you have agreed that the bills are fair.  Now, pay them."  Courts very often enforce this principal in favor of the attorney.

So it is in Schlenker v Cascino  2015 NY Slip Op 00666  Decided on January 29, 2015  Appellate Division, Third Department. 

"Plaintiff’s legal representation later expanded to include other related matters and, in January 2010, defendants became delinquent in

their payment of counsel fees. Plaintiff withdrew from representation in 2011 and commenced this action seeking, among other things, to recover on an account stated. Defendants joined issue and counterclaimed for legal malpractice. Supreme Court (Teresi, J.) granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his account stated cause of action. Supreme Court (Platkin, J.) subsequently dismissed the legal malpractice counterclaim at trial and thereafter entered a judgment awarding plaintiff $52,480.94 in counsel fees plus $8,126.64 in prejudgment interest, as well as $14,762.37 in costs and disbursements. This appeal by defendants ensued.

Defendants do not contest the dismissal of their legal malpractice counterclaim. Rather, they argue only that summary judgment was improperly awarded on the account stated cause of [*2]action. We cannot agree. Plaintiff submitted proof that he provided defendants with invoices for services rendered and that he received no objection to the bills. Plaintiff also supplied the emails and letters to and from Cascino reflecting plaintiff’s continuing work for defendants, his repeated requests for payment, and the lack of any objection by defendants to the work performed or the amounts billed. This evidence was sufficient to carry plaintiff’s initial burden on his motion (see Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP v Oppitz, 105 AD3d 1162, 1163 [2013]; Levine v Harriton & Furrer, LLP, 92 AD3d 1176, 1178-1179 [2012]; J.B.H., Inc. v Godinez, 34 AD3d 873, 875 [2006]), and Cascino’s "self-serving, bald allegations of oral protests were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an account stated" (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]; see Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP v Oppitz, 105 AD3d at 1163-1164; Antokol & Coffin v Myers, 86 AD3d 876, 877 [2011])"