Author name: Marc Alexander

Retainer Agreements: Modification Of Retainer Agreements—New Proposed Rules Of Professional Conduct May Require Fletcher-Like Disclosures

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Carole J. Buckner Surveys Recent Developments in May 2010 Orange County Lawyer Article.      Carole J. Buckner, a Special Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct Professor at Western State College of Law, and Chair of the California State Bar’s Committee on Professionalism and Conduct (COPRAC), has written an article aptly entitled “Modification of Lawyer-Client Fee […]

Costs: Court Of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Denial Of Certain Routine Costs

Cases: Costs

Considers Expert Depositions, Subpoena Rush Costs, Expert Witness Fees, Exhibit Copying, Court Call Expenses, and Prejudgment Interest.      The prevailing party in civil litigation is entitled to routine costs. However, the trial court does possess discretion to determine if the expense was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation (in which case it is

Private Attorney General Statute: Prior Decision On Trial Court Discretion On Deposition Reporter Fees Did Not Result In A Public Benefit

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Second District, Division 3 Affirms Denial of Fees in Split Decision.      In Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 1014 (2008) (Serrano I), the Second District, Division 3 decided that a trial court in a pending action does have authority to require a deposition reporter to provide a copy of a

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act: Van Skike And Christensen Followed In Recent Ninth Circuit Unpublished Memorandum Decision

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  ALJ Determination Based On Lower Fee Rates From Prior LHWCA Cases Rejected by Ninth Circuit.      In our March 9, 2009 post, we explored two Ninth Circuit companion opinions, Van Skike v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 557 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2009) and Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. Of Am., 557 F.3d 1049

Section 998: Cost-Shifting Feature Of Statute Required Prevailing Litigant To Move For Costs Under CRC 3.1700 Or Appeal Refusal To Award Costs

Cases: Section 998

  Fourth District, Division 3 Holds Litigant Waited Too Long To Claim Costs After Resolution of Merits Appeal.      In our category “Section 998,” we have explored the cost-shifting features of Code of Civil Procedure section 998—with expert witness fees being the most expensive costs usually at issue.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 However, section 998 does not state

SLAPP: $15,000 Fee Award Affirmed Out Of $35.382.37 Request

Cases: SLAPP

  Second District, Division 1 Clarifies that Maughan Did Not Establish a 50 Hour Definitive “Upper Limit” for Compensable SLAPP Motion Work.      In Stark v. Withrow, Case No. B214957 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 26, 2010) (unpublished), the Second District, Division 1 affirmed a $15,000 fee award (out of a requested $35,382.37) in favor

Private Attorney General Statute: $68,480 Award—Half That Requested—Against Contra Costa County Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

First District, Division 3 Rejects Both Procedural and Substantive Attacks to Fee Award.      Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 is California’s private attorney general statute, allowing fee shifting in certain public interest cases. You can learn more by accessing our “Private Attorney General Statute” category on the left hand side of our home page.

Scroll to Top