Law Firm’s Appeal Lacked Merit on Procedural and Merit Grounds–”Get Outta Here”.
You know, this case does not really fit well within our categories, and co-contributor Marc is a stickler for trying to put our posts into categories. However, a very entertaining decision has come down from our local Santa Ana appellate court, one we cannot resist from blogging on.
Justice Bedsworth, in a 3-0 opinion in his very distinctive style, affirmed a basically “wash” decision between client and former attorneys in Hack v. Gilbert & Marlowe, Case No G044080 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 24, 2012) (unpublished).
Here you go on the facts: Wife got a bargain deal of $150 per hour in a divorce case from appealing law firm, conditioned upon her paying bills on time. If not, she would have to pay $350 per hour. Law firm’s final bill was $2,600, but law firm did not know that wife’s new boyfriend was footing the bill until his untimely death (on a few fronts) before the final bill was sent. Wife, now that she was on the hook for the bill, balked and claimed that the law firm overcharged her for preparing 44 subpoenas at the rate of 1.33 hours each. She refused to pay the final bill, so that law firm tried to enforce its bargain at the $350 per hour arrangement — so the final bill grew from $2,600 to $178,000.
Let the fun and games begin.
Wife didn’t pay, wife sued for overcharging, and law firm cross-complained for the full $178,000. Result? Close to a “wash” — both got something, but wife (we guess) prevailed to the tune of a whopping $ 400 net.
Law firm appealed. Want to guess the result in this one?
Affirmed.
Law firm violated some California Rules of Court on how to structure its opening appellate brief, reason enough to sustain the result. However, even with the merits considered, the primary claim for jury instructional error was not erroneous or prejudicial, so the “net, wash” result was affirmed in the case of the wife successfully challenging the charitable (and litigious) former attorneys.