Mr. Segal So Reports in Recent California Lawyer Article. We would like to thank Mr. Perry L. Segal, an IT executive turned e-discovery attorney and consultant, for an interesting statistic he provided in his article “E-Discovery: New Rules, Big Headaches,” published in the September 2009 California Lawyer. Mr. Segal reports that it’s estimated […]
Professor Uelmen’s Latest Survey Shows A Rise in Reversals. In the September 2009 issue of the California Lawyer, Professor Gerald F. Uelmen talks about the recent trends in California Supreme Court decision making, doing so in an article wickedly entitled “Too Much Togetherness?” Beyond this main topic, Professor Uelmen also has an interesting survey
Parent’s Ability to Pay Does Not Need to be Recalculated Every Time Minor’s Counsel Submits a Fee Bill. Courts can issue orders appointing counsel to represent the child under Family Code section 3150 in dissolution actions. The court has wide discretion to make the parents, rather than the County, responsible for the counsel fees.
Fourth Circuit Concludes Fees Are Payable to Claimant. Here is an interesting issue that has drawn a split among federal courts of appeals: whether attorney’s fees payable under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2812 (EAJA), in Social Security Act benefit cases go to the claimant or the attorney. The importance
Also, Co-Contributor Marc Wins 3-Day Jury Trial. U.S. Navy Sonar Whale Settlement. In our September 16, 2008 post, we reported on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in National Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) v. Winter, where Irell & Manella was awarded $437,584.24 in fees in the dispute to protect whales from U.S. Navy sonar use
Second District, Division 4 So Rules in Unpublished Decision. Apportionment of attorney’s fees, as between covered and uncovered claims, is a discretionary call, as the next decision demonstrates. Hur v. Lee, Case No. B210502 c/w BC361921 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 9, 2009) (unpublished) involved a sushi restaurant seller and his brokers, who
Sixth District Affirms Fee Denial by Lower Court. As we have stated before, the first step in seeking fee recovery in California state courts is to find a firm fee “entitlement anchor,” either a contract or statute conferring the ability for a litigant to recoup attorney’s fees. In the next case, there was a
State Bar’s Standing Committee Issues Formal Opinion Confirming Propriety of these Settlements. Formal Opinion No. 2009-176 of the State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has concluded that (a) a lawyer does not violate any ethical obligation by recommending or conveying a fee-waiver settlement offer in a given case, and (2) a
Ninth Circuit So Holds in Alaska Case. Although we generally limit ourselves to California cases, we do a short report on Disability Law Center of Alaska, Inc. v. Anchorage School Dist., Case No. 08-35057 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009) (for publication) because of its potential importance in future California cases. There, plaintiff—an Alaskan
Presiding Justice Sills Sustains Fee Awards on Behalf of 3-0 Panel. If one is prone to read lots of appellate opinions (as we are), distinctive styles come through by various appellate justices authoring the cases assigned to them. That happens to be the case in the next decision we review—Presiding Justice Sills, the author,
