Author name: Marc Alexander

In The News . . . . Wisconsin Enacts Fee Caps Legislation; PA Supreme Court Decides Multipliers Are Not Allowable In Magnuson-Moss Cases; And Delaware Chancery Court Approves Third Highest Shareholder Fee Award

In The News

  Wisconsin Passes into Law Presumptive Three Times Fee Cap.      Effective December 20, 2011, Wisconsin recently enacted legislation requiring judges to award attorney’s fees no more than 3 times damages in many cases. (2011 Wisconsin Act 92.) Although this cap establishes a presumptively reasonable fee award, a court can award a greater amount after […]

Liens For Attorneys Fees: Client Cannot Disrupt Attorney’s Lien By Settling Out From Under Lien With Adverse Party When Fee Award Was Final In Nature

Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees

  Didn’t Help that Settling Client Got $100,000 in Cash in a Black Briefcase–None of Which Went to Attorney.      As co-contributor Mike is prone to say, “You can’t make this stuff up.” (Or something quite close to it.) Well, here is one with interesting facts and a result that is not all that surprising.

Family Law Two-Fer: Failure To Make Needs-Based Findings Was Not Reversible Error On Fee Award And Substantial Fee Award To Wife Under Premarital Settlement Agreement Was No Fluke

Cases: Family Law

Marriage of Bader, Case No. G044876 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 21, 2011) (Unpublished).      In this one, husband appealed a $20,000 needs-based attorney's fees award to wife (out of a requested $25,000) under Family Code sections 2030/2032. Husband claimed that the award had to be reversed because no express findings were made on

Employment: Substantial Fee Awards To Employer Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Employment

  Plaintiffs’ Actions for Split Shift and Reporting Time Pay Falls Within Unilateral, Pro-Plaintiff Fee Shifting Provision—Not Allowing for Defense Recovery.      Here is a big one for you employment lawyers out there.      In Aleman v. AirTouch Cellar, Case No. B231142 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 21, 2011) (certified for publication), employer prevailed on

In The News . . . . Loser Pay/Capped Damages Update, In-House Lawyers Balking At Paying For Novice Lawyer Use, Best Cities For First Year Attorney Buying Power, And Impact of Court Budget Cuts

In The News

       Co-contributor Mike’s relative Tom Basehart has loaded us up with some more year-of-the-end articles having some interesting discussions on attorney’s fees, lawyer compensation, and impact of state court budget cuts. So, we share some of the highlights with you now. Tort Reform: Losers Pay, Capped Damages, and Other Reform Updates.      As reported

Year in Review – 2011 [Part 2 of 2]

Year in Review

  Wrapping It Up: M & M’s Top 25 Attorney’s Fees Decisions For 2011      Here is the rounding out of our Top 25 Attorney’s Fee Decisions for 2011.      12. Rogel v. Lynwood Revelopment Agency, 194 Cal.App.4th 1319 (2011) [2d Dist., Div. 8]; author–Presiding Justice Bigelow: Lodestar for winning litigant under Code of Civil

Deadlines/Section 1717/Substantiation Of Reasonableness of Fees: Fourth District, Division 3 Talks About Timely Moving For Fee Recovery, Scope of Section 1717 Recovery, And Fee Billing Redactions

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Reversal and Remand Was the Result in this One.      Acting Presiding Justice O’Leary in Fuller v. Monogram Real Estate, Case No. G044808 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 19, 2011) (unpublished), on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local appellate court, got to explore three issues of interest in the attorney’s fees area

Scroll to Top