Author name: Marc Alexander

Retainer Agreements/Section 1717/Reasonableness of Fees: Client Winner Against Attorney After Voiding Retainer Agreement Was Entitled to 1717 Fee Recovery

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

Sixth District Rejected 1717 Mutuality Challenge, But Did Remand For Determination of Reasonable Fee After Proof Failure.      Here is a very interesting one at the top of a new year in the retainer agreement/Civil Code section 1717/reasonableness of fees areas.      Palmer v. Taylor, Case No. H033644 (6th Dist. Jan. 4, 2011) (unpublished) was […]

Class Actions/Civil Rights/Private Attorney General/Settlements: California Lawyer Article Explores Negotiation Of Attorney’s Fees In Public Agency Cases

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Settlement

  Concurrent Negotiation of Substantive Relief and Fees in Public Agency Cases Is Allowable.      Adam W. Hofmann, an attorney in the San Francisco office of Hanson Bridgett, has written an article entitled “Negotiating Attorneys Fees” in the January 2011 edition of The California Lawyer. In it, he explains that California cases expressly reject any

In The News . . . . San Diego Spent $8.6 Million To Fight Police Officer Suits

In The News

City Spent $55.3 Million to Fight Lawsuits During 2003-2010 Time Frame.      According to a December 30, 2010 post entitled “Police Officers Are City’s Top Legal Foe” by Kelly Thornton, the San Diego Police Officers Association sued San Diego 3 times in recent years, with the City spending $8.6 million to fight the police officers

Substantiation Of Fees: Laffey, Adjusted Laffey Matrix, Or Hybrid Approach For Determining Reasonable Hourly Lodestar Rate–Part 2 of 2

Cases: Laffey Matrix

Adjusted Laffey Matrix Methodology and U.S. District Judge Walker’s Approach.      In our December 28, 2010 post, we discussed the Laffey Matrix, which has gained acceptance by some judges in determining reasonable hourly rates for attorneys when it comes to presentation of proof in fees petitions. We now give you an introduction to alternative methodologies

Prevailing Party: Mixed Results Means Plaintiff Not Entitled To Fee Award Under Settlement Agreement

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Settlement

Despite County’s Breach of Completion Date, Continued Negotiations Waived Any Breach and Mixed Results Sustained Fee Denial.      Unless you have a clear win under a contractual fees clause, a trial judge has discretion to determine who the prevailing party is under Civil Code section 1717. We have blogged on many cases that underscore this

Reasonableness Of Fees: $254,615.50 Fee Award For Plaintiff Affirmed After Her Acceptance Of $95,000 CCP § 998 Offer

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Standard of Review

$509,231 Scaled Back By Trial Court, But Sustained On Appeal.      Here is an interesting substantial fee award. Half of what plaintiff requested, but way above the $95,000 Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer eventually accepted in the case on the eve of trial. Goes to show that fees do not have to be

Substantiation Of Fees And Private Attorney General Statute: $1,007,067 Fee Award Gets Scaled Down To $669,525 On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Lack of Supporting Proof For Certain Time Frame Dictates Fee Reduction.      Defendant won an unusual unreasonable restraint on alienation battle over a buffer zone, leading the trial court to award fees of $1,007,067 under California’s private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5) in Greenlaw Grupe, Jr. Operating Co. v. Land

Section 1717: Attorney’s Fees Award Reversed Because Declarations Did Not Establish Whether “Of Counsel” Attorneys Got Past Trope Restriction

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

$20,147.50 Fee Award and $3,581.87 Costs Award Go POOF!       We have many times explored the restriction in Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 292 (1995) [one of our Leading Cases], where in propria persona attorneys cannot recover Civil Code section 1717 fees expended in litigating matters on their own behalf. The hallmark of situations

Scroll to Top