Professional Responsibility Article Covers Basics Of Proper Retainer Letter And Attorney Billing Practices. Under the heading “Ensure That Your Clients Pay Your Fees”, attorney Lorraine M. Walsh of Walnut Creek has written an ethics/professional responsibility article that appears in the November 4, 2016 on-line edition of the Los Angeles Daily Journal. Ms. Walsh covers […]
Disqualification Order Did Not Prevent Some Work By DQ-ed Counsel. Yuba County Courthouse. 1933. Library of Congress. Western Water Co v. Yuba County Water Agency, Case No. C072058 (3d Dist. Sept. 16, 2016) (unpublished) involved a fight over the scope of a water easement between plaintiff successor and the Agency. Plaintiff sued
Attorney Intentionally Breaching A Fiduciary To Non-Client Can Be Held Liable For Fees As Consequential Damages. Although our focus is on California cases, we thought it would be instructive to report on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent decision in Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, No. 074291 (N.J. Supreme Ct. Apr. 26, 2016) (published).
Trial Court Approved Arbitration Award Involving Contract Against Public Policy, So Remanded To Determine When Actual Conflict Arose. Everyone thinks that there is little hope of appealing arbitration awards. However, that is not true where the underlying claim rests on a contract which is illegal or against public policy. A client’s former
Fourth District, Division 3 Decides Conflict Unwaivable and Disqualification Order Sustained Under Inherent Authority Of Trial Court. This next one, Abedi v. Sheikhpour, Case Nos. G050361/G050362 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 16, 2015) (unpublished), is a wild case producing an interesting 3-0 decision by Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth. The appellate court sustained
$55 Cash Payment Under Claims Procedure Was Consideration, With Class Counsel Obtaining $6.5 Million In Fees And Expenses. In Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., Case No. 8:10-cv-00711 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2015), U.S. District Judge David O. Carter approved a $6.5 million payment of fees/expenses to class counsel in a case involving
Conservatee’s Daughter’s Appeals Sadly End Contentious Conservatorship Fee Proceedings. In a bitterly contested conservatorship proceeding, Conservatorship of Gdowski, Case Nos. G043583 & G044070 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 7, 2011) (both unpublished), two appeals resolved awards of attorney’s fees to the lawyers for both conservatee and conservator resulting from conservatee’s daughter’s objections to
Quantum Meruit Recovery Denied to Attorney. California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-300 requires an attorney entering into a business transaction with a client to make the transaction fair in nature, put it in writing, advise the client in the writing to seek the advice of an independent lawyer, and then have the client
March 2011 Article in The Advocate Magazine Explores Central Fee Issues. For readers wanting a recent primer on key issues in attorney’s fees litigation, we commend for reading Joseph P. Wohrle’s article “Identifying Key Issues in Attorney’s Fees Litigation” which is published in the March 2011 edition of Advocate Magazine. Mr. Wohrle, a
Second District, Division 4 Faces Issues of First Impression Under § 6147. Justice Manella, speaking for a 3-0 panel of the Second District, Divison 4, faced some first impression legal issues with respect to the reach of Business and Professions Code section 6147’s requirements over certain hybrid contingency agreements. In particular, the appellate court
