Cases: Ethics

Appeal Sanctions, Ethics, Sanctions, SLAPP: 1/4 DCA Affirms $41,580 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Self-Represented Appellant For Previous Appeal, Imposes $10,000 In Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal, And Remands To Lower Court For Award Against Appellant For Fees Incurred By Respondent On Latest Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

In A Masterclass Of What Not To Do On Appeal, Self-Represented Appellant Challenged A Fee Award Ordered Against Him By Rehashing Issues Determined Previously On Appeal, Raising Issues Not Previously Raised, Attacking The Character Of Respondent And His Counsel, And Insulting Court Staff And Judicial Officers. In a case that has dragged on in excess […]

Ethics: Although Discovery Sanctions Affirmed In A Family Law Matter, Appellate Court Advises Attorneys Not To Make Character Attacks In Appellate Briefs

Cases: Ethics

It Reminds All Attorneys, Even Younger Ones, To Safeguard Their Reputations—You Have To Preserve Them! No need to post on the specifics of Marriage of Alexander, Case No. A172184 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 27, 2026, posted on Jan. 28, 2026) (unpublished), which affirmed discovery sanctions imposed in a very contentious family law case.  However,

Ethics, Settlement: Client May Ratify An Unauthorized Settlement Unless It Was Not Truly Voluntary

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Settlement

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

Employment, Ethics:  $576,000 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Cross-Defendant On FEHA Claim Allowed As An Amendment On The Eve Of Trial Was Affirmed Where The Cross-Complainant Recovered $1.4 Million In Damages

Cases: Employment, Cases: Ethics

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

Ethics: Defense Counsel’s Failure To Notify Plaintiff Or Lower Court About Ineligibility To Practice Of Plaintiff’s Attorney Led To A Reversal And Remand Of An Adverse Fee Award Against Plaintiff

Cases: Ethics

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

Construction, Costs, Ethics, Indemnity, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: $4.176M Contractual Fee Award To General Contractor And Against Owner Affirmed On Appeal, But Expert Witness Costs Award To General Contractor Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Construction, Cases: Costs, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

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

Ethics, SLAPP: Fees Award, After Previous SLAPP Grant Reversal, Had To Be Reversed

Cases: Ethics, Cases: SLAPP

… 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,

Ethics, Liens For Attorney Fees: Attorney’s Lien Had Superiority Over Surety’s Later Assignment Of Claims, Gaining Almost $1.39 Million From Settlement Proceeds

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees

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

Ethics, Retainer Agreements: Attorneys Could Not Keep Unearned Portion Of Fees In Flat Fee Retainer, While Client Could Not Force Disgorgement Of Pre-Withdrawal Fees Earned By Discharged Attorneys

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Retainer Agreements

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

Scroll to Top