$10,000 Offer Not Token Where Pretrial Investigation Showed No Basis to Invalidate Will in “All or Nothing” Case. CCP § 998 offers do not have to be substantial to survive a “good faith” test. If the offeror does adequate pretrial investigation in an “all or nothing” case, even fairly small offers will be […]
Just a quick post to remind ourselves that this is our third “birthday” in doing this blawg. We can hardly believe it; how time flies since our inaugural post on May 11, 2008. We hope it has been useful to you readers out there, and we thank you all for some very excellent
Use of Associate For Appellate Work Was Tantamount to “Lost Opportunity Costs” Not Allowable under Trope. We have done numerous posts on the Trope limitation which prevents in pro per attorneys representing themselves from obtaining attorney’s fees recovery under various fee-shifting statutes or contractual clauses. Now, Justice Mosk of the Second District, Division
The Conference is June 16, 2011, Noon to 5 p.m., at Southwestern School of Law The National Association of Legal Fee Analysis (NALFA) holds its annual conference this year at Southwestern School of Law in Los Angeles. Blawg co-contributor and co-creator Mike Hensley will be one of the speakers, participating in a panel
Only About 10% Reduction Made by Superior Court Judge Charles Margines. Hat Tip to Howard M. Fields, Senior Counsel with Miller, LLP in Los Angeles, who brought the next case to our attention. He obtained a great result for his firm’s clients in a recent trade secrets case that was voluntarily dismissed without
Inherent Power of the Court Sanctions Reach a Broad Spectrum of Conduct, As Shown in the Article. Gregory P. Joseph, a New York City attorney, has written an article, “Developments in the Federal Law of Sanctions,” which has been published in the April 12, 2011 edition of The United States Law Week. It explores
Second District, Division 2 Answers the Question Under Civil Code Section 1717. We have seen numerous contracts that have attorney’s fees clauses that read something like this: “In any action between the parties arising out of or in relation to this Agreement, including any collection attempts should Payment not be timely made, the prevailing
Appellate Court So Holds in Prior Case After a Rehearing. In a prior post on October 13, 2010, we reviewed the case of Benjamin, Weill & Mazer v. Kors, Case No. A125732 (1st Dist., Div. 2), which was published but then erased from the books after the appellate court granted a rehearing on
Appellate Court Stresses Civility, Reminding Us It Is Not Mutually Exclusive With Zealous Advocacy. This case is destined to be cited and likely quoted often both in the areas of family law fee sanctions under Family Code section 271 and attorney civility. In re Marriage of Davenport, Case No. A126181 (1st Dist.,
Municipal Groups Successfully Lobby Appellate Court to Publish Decision. In our April 10, 2011 post, we discussed Center for Biological Diversity v. Cal. Fish and Game Commission, Case No. A127555 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 8, 2011). The decision involved a $258,800 fee award under California’s private attorney general statute which was reversed
