Fee Dispute Involving General Chuck Yeager Did Not Go His Way, Although Winning Attorney Did Not Get All Collection Fees Either.
Pavone v. Yeager, Case No. Do59578 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 18, 2013) (unpublished) is a fee dispute involving a former attorney and ex-client General Charles E. (Chuck) Yeager, whose wife Victoria had much of the contact with the former attorney.
Former attorney sued for nonpayment, with a jury awarding former attorney $114,400 on his claim for breach of contract and $19,854 for a claim of money due and owing (the latter being the amount of the unpaid legal bills). The lower court conditionally granted a new trial unless former attorney agreed to remit down to only $19,854, because jurors obviously awarded money to former attorney for his own work in representing himself in violation of Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 277, 292 (1995). Then, the trial judge granted former attorney $55,000 in fees for an attorney with whom he consulted, much lower than the $297,608.26 request. (The jury also found against General Yeager on a cross-claim for invasion of privacy/appropriation of name when former attorney used General Yeager’s name on his website for some period of time.)
General Yeager’s appeal was not successful.
The claim that the retainer agreement was hopelessly ambiguous was rejected, because the wording mentioned "litigation of various claims and defenses"—language broad enough to cover even future disputes for which former attorney provided some services. The other big challenge was the idea that the retainer agreement was unconscionable in attempting to waive the Trope prohibition—an issue which did not have to be reached because the court actually enforced Trope.