Cases: Ethics

Ethics, Lodestar, Multipliers: Lower Court Properly Applied A .4 Negative Multiplier To A FEHA Fee Request Based On Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Incivility Throughout The Litigation

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

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 […]

Ethics, Retainer Agreement, Special Fee Shifting Provisions: Although Fee Award Against HOA Belongs To Attorney, Attorney Had To Offset For Contingency Fee Already Received

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 Sept. 25, 2023) (unpublished) is a case which shows that attorneys need to be careful when they receive a fee award which belongs

Bankruptcy Efforts, Costs, Ethics: Ninth Circuit Reiterates That Costs Associated With Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings Are Nondischargeable In A Chapter 7 Case

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Costs, Cases: Ethics

$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).

Ethics, Reasonableness Of Fees: 2/8 DCA Justice Wiley Suggests That Ethical Games And Unprofessionalism Will Justify A Fee Recovery Denial Or Reduction

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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

Ethics: Simultaneous Representation Of Corporation And Major Shareholder For Common Goal Not Related To Corporate Mgmt./Control May Not Be A Conflict, But A Dispute Over Corporate Mgmt. Can Create A Conflict Between The Corporation And Major Shareholder

Cases: Ethics

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)

Ethics: 4/3 DCA Justice Fybel Provides Tips For Judges To Avoid Ethical Issues

Cases: Ethics

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

Ethics, Interest, Reasonableness Of Fees, Retainer Agreements: Where Fee Agreement Is Compliant/Enforceable Under B&P § 6148, Unconscionability Factor Guides Contractual Fees Charged And Reasonableness Governs Atty. Performance Under Retainer Agreement

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Interest, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements

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

Ethics, POOF!, SLAPP!: Attorney Fees And Costs Awarded To Successfully SLAPPing Defendants Goes POOF! With Reversal Of Trial Court’s Partial Grant Of Defendants’ SLAPP Motion

Cases: Ethics, Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

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

Ethics, Quantum Meruit: Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Award Of Zero Fees To Contingency Attorneys Obtaining $25 Million Award For Clients Based On Failure To Substantiate Fees And On Certain Fiduciary Breaches To Client

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Quantum Meruit

However, Clients Had To Reimburse Certain Hard Costs To Attorneys.             Although we generally do not post on out-of-state cases, Vandenberg v. RQM, LLC, No. 10 L 003188, 2020 Ill. App. (1st) 190544 (Ill. App. June 26, 2020) is a sobering reminder of what contingency attorneys must do to obtain substantial fees where a settlement

Scroll to Top