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 On October 3, 2023, we posted on Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations, Case No. B321566 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 2, 2023 unpublished), but it was certified for publication on October 25, 2023.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 […]
2/3 DCA Agreed With The Reasoning In Karton. More and more, we are seeing appellate opinions, whether published or not, stressing the need for civility among attorneys in litigation cases. In fact, there are proposals being considered which would require that California attorneys, annually, have to reaffirm their oath and to confirm they will
Attorney Was Liable For Substantial Elder Abuse Fees To Prevailing Elderly Client Based On Failing To Properly Offset And Return Money To Client. Koehler v. Prinz, Case No. C095229 (3d Dist. Sept. 25, 2023) (unpublished) is a case which shows that attorneys need to be careful when they receive a fee award which belongs
Application Of Law To Facts Is Not One For Experts To Opine On. In Timed Out LLC v. Prisma Entertainment LLC, Case No. B309791 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 16, 2023) (unpublished), a litigant opposing a fee request proffered attorney declarations opining that no fees should be awarded because the prevailing party’s attorneys violated
$61,122.27 Was The Tab. In Kassas v. State Bar of California, No. 21-55900 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2022) (published), the Ninth Circuit reiterated that, in line with In re Findley, 593 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2010), the costs associated with a Chapter 7 debtor attorney’s disciplinary proceedings were nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7).
Case Did Not Involve Fees, But His Lesson Should Be Paid Attention To. Although the opinion in Field v. U.S. Bank National Association, Case No. B309111 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 9, 2022) (published) is not an attorney’s fees decision per se, an observation early on in the opinion, authored by Justice Wiley, should
Discussion Occurred When Corporate Attorney Sought To Collect Unpaid Fees. When a trial court granted and disallowed some unpaid fees by a corporate attorney representing the corporation and major shareholder, separately and together at times, the Fifth District in Cyril Lawrence, Inc. v. K.S. Aviation, Inc., Case No. F079662 (5th Dist. Oct. 26, 2021)
OCBA ZOOM Meeting On August 5, 2021 Provides Some Nice Guidance. On August 5, 2021, Justice Richard Fybel provided a symposium for lawyers and judges on how California judges (and lawyers, for the matter) should ethically guide themselves, both in court and out of court, under the California Code/Canon of Ethics. Here are the
Attorney Obtained Substantial Pretrial Attachment, But He Did Not Obtain Substantial Interest On Delinquent Fees Because No Interest Provision Was Present In The Retainer Agreement. Pech v. Morgan, Case No. B300524 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 11, 2021) (published) is an instructive decision indicating how enforceable, compliant fee agreements are dealt with in pretrial
Defendants’ Internet And Twitter Statements Against Plaintiffs Consisted Mainly Of "Vulgar And/Or Adolescent Personal Insults, Misogynistic, Racist, And Xenophobic Comments, And Other Slurs Having Nothing To Do With Any Reasoned Discussion Of Trustworthiness, Competence, Or Any Other 'Public Issue Or An Issue Of Public Interest.'” In Block v. Bramzon, Case Nos. B292129/B297198 (2d
