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
Professional Courtesies Stressed Greatly in This Sobering Opinion. We knew that this next case would be interesting when it led off with this quote from Charles E. Clark’s article entitled History, Systems and Functions of Pleading, published at 11 Va. L. Rev. 517, 542 (1925): Procedure “is a means to an end, not an
August 31 was a day in which two decisions were issued by Courts of Appeal, both demonstrating the deference that trial and appellate courts will give to arbitration attorney’s fees awards. Miller v. Lifestyles Senior Housing Managers, Case No. C059843 (3d Dist. Aug. 31, 2010) (Unpublished). In the first one, plaintiff lost
Finds Attorney’s Lien Dispute Can Be Resolved in Minor Compromise Case and Analyzes Permissive Withdrawal Circumstances That Will or Will Not Give Rise to Quantum Meruit Recovery. Here is an unpublished decision that faced some gnarly issues regarding jurisdictional and quantum meruit recovery issues in an attorney’s lien situation where an attorney obtained a
Nonconflicted Attorneys Get Award of Fees; Conflicted Attorneys Do Receive Reimbursement of Over $1.2 Million in Expenses. In our April 26, 2009 post, we reported on Rodriguez v. West Publishing Co., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009), where class representative incentive agreements creating conflicts of interests required reconsideration of fee awards to both
State Bar’s Standing Committee Issues Formal Opinion Confirming Propriety of these Settlements. Formal Opinion No. 2009-176 of the State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has concluded that (a) a lawyer does not violate any ethical obligation by recommending or conveying a fee-waiver settlement offer in a given case, and (2) a
Ninth Circuit Requires Reexamination of Fee Denial to Objector’s Counsel and Fee Award to Class Counsel. For the plaintiff class action practitioners out there which follow our blog, the next decision is must reading. Not only does it highlight the fiduciary and ethical duties involved in the process, but counsels that incentive agreements should
Holding Draws A Sharp Dissent; Opinion Also Discusses Lodestar and Sufficiency of Fee Substantiation. The next case should spur the interest of non-California lawyers wishing to do limited consultation or limited co-counseling with California lawyers in California federal courts. Even if you are not licensed in California or do not obtain pro hac vice
