Clients In the Case Did Ratify, Which Earned The Settling Former Attorneys A Nice Contingency Fee Award. Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP, Case No. B341157 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 8, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion published) contains a good discussion of when a client can ratify an unauthorized settlement reached by former attorneys and […]
Cross-Complainant Sought $1.25 Million In Fees; Fees Were Appropriate Despite The Delay In Adding The FEHA Cross-Claim. This case is interesting to show how procedural rulings to add a claim at trial—such as a FEHA cross-claim—can make or break the affirmance of a subsequent fee award to the prevailing FEHA cross-complainant. Pak v. Rassman, Case
Because Provisional Remedies Are Gauged To Prevent Dissipation Of Assets, MFAA Notice Did Not Need To Be Brought Where Clients Were Aware Of These Rights. In Winthrop v. Dameshek, Case No. G064192 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 16, 2025) (unpublished), a lower court issued around a $1.5 million ex parte pretrial attachment order in favor
Plaintiff Was Not In Pro Per, But Basically Unrepresented By Ineligible Counsel And No One Gave Her Notice Of The Ineligibility—Civility Again Stressed In The Fees Area. Civility has been stressed in many recent appellate opinions, with fee reductions affirmed and with multipliers denied based on incivility by a litigant’s claiming attorney asking for
Case Explores Fee Clause Interpretation, An Award Of Fees To An Unlicensed Associate Supervised By A California Attorney, And An Award Of Expert Witness Costs Which Were Not Pled Or Proven As Damages. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. 250 Fourth Development LP, Case No. A169470 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 13, 2025) (unpublished) is
… But Plaintiff’s Uncivil Remarks In Appellate Briefing Led The Court Of Appeal To Deny It Costs On Appeal. Incivility is a recurring theme by trial and appellate courts. This opinion is one that, yet again, reinforces that attorneys should refrain from making attacks against opposing counsel and the trial judge. In WasteXperts,
Lower Court Did Not Err In Adjudicating Lien Claim In The Underlying Action Because The Parties Stipulated To The Procedure. Plaintiff’s attorney in USS Cal Builders, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., Case No. A168102 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 20, 2024) (unpublished) had a lien on settlement proceeds which was
Rules Of Professional Conduct And Wording Of Retainer Agreement Guided The Result. Both ex-attorneys and ex-client took draconian positions in a case involving what fees were owed by ex-client under a flat fee retainer agreement involving criminal and divorce proceedings. Attorneys claimed they were entitled to the whole $350,000 retainer even though they did
No Clients Were Harmed, So Enforcing The Agreement Was Fine Under The Circumstances. In Liberty Law Office, Inc. v. The Bloom Firm, Case Nos. A165269 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2024) (unpublished; opn. modified and rehearing denied), arbitrators, the lower court, and the appellate court all agreed that a Joint Venture
Message Is That Incivility Can Lead To A Negative Multiplier To A Fees Request, On Top Of Other Reductions. On October 3, 2023, we posted on Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations, Case No. B321566 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 2, 2023 unpublished), but it was certified for publication on October 25, 2023. The main lesson
