Across-The-Board Fee Reductions, Option-Based 998 Offers, And State Bar Probation Issues Are Under Review. Here are some attorney‘s fees issues pending for review before the California Supreme Court: 1. Cash v. County of Los Angeles, S 291827, 111 Cal.App.5th 74 – – whether a trial court’s across-the-board reduction in fees triggers heightened scrutiny of the
Appellant’s Counsel Assessed With Frivolous Appeal Sanctions Of $30,000 Morales v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. A170154 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 4, 2025) (published) highlights a lesson for all practitioners: sometimes it is better not to appeal non-appealable orders and not to challenge discovery rulings, which are by and large discretionary
Defense Should Have Apportioned In Its Moving Papers Or Asked For Supplemental Briefing Opportunity. In Janisse v. MLK-L.A. Healthcare Corp., Case No. B326593 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 3, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff brought FEHA/whistleblower, and non-FEHA claims against defendant. Plaintiff lost all of her claims after a jury trial. The defense
Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5330(d) So Provides. In Doe v. County of Orange, Case No. G064562 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 2, 2025) (published), the appellate court reminds us that Welfare & Institutions Code section 5330(d) allows a mentally disordered person to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, on a mandatory basis, by a
Due Process Required The Reversal. In Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Martha A., Case No. G063437 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2025) (unpublished), a conservator was awarded attorney’s fees of $94,955, a reduction from the request of $186,990 after the lower court entertained and granted certain oral objections by one of
