Didn’t Help that Settling Client Got $100,000 in Cash in a Black Briefcase–None of Which Went to Attorney. As co-contributor Mike is prone to say, “You can’t make this stuff up.” (Or something quite close to it.) Well, here is one with interesting facts and a result that is not all that surprising. […]
Decision Deals with Family Law Attorney’s Real Property Lien. In our July 20, 2011 post, we discussed In re Marriage of Ramirez, a decision exploring the intricacies of the family law attorney’s real property lien. We can now report that the case was certified for publication on August 11, 2011.
Family Code Section 2033 FLARPL Considered. Although there was a reversal because an order rendered without an indispensable party is void (with the appellant being an indispensable party able to challenge the void order), the appellate court in Marriage of Ramirez, Case No. D058284 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 19, 2011) (unpublished) discussed
Fact That Attorney Lost Case, But His Efforts Obtained Worth After Appellate Reversal, Did Indeed Justify His Lien. Here is one with a real twist, counseling us attorney bloggers and readers to not give up on pursuit of an attorney’s lien even after a trial defeat. After all, an appellate reversal indeed may mean
Here is the second installment of our top 20 decisions. 10. Jankey v. Lee, 181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (1st Dist., Div. 4 2010), review granted, No. S180890 (May 12, 2010) — authored by Presiding Justice Ruvolo; discussed in our Feb. 6, 2010 post. Attorney’s fees are awardable to a prevailing defendant under Civil
Fourth District, Division 3 Says “Yes,” But Reverses on a Procedural Point. In Christopher B. Mears, a Professional Corp. v. REM Physical Therapy, Case No. G042204 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 24, 2010) (unpublished), the appellate court agreed with Gilman v. Dalby, 176 Cal.App.4th 606 (2009) [reviewed in our August 13, 2009 post]
Fourth District, Division 3 Sides With Reasoning in California State Bar Formal Opinion. In Fletcher v. Davis, 33 Cal.4th 61, 71-72 (2004) [one of our Leading Cases], the California Supreme Court held that an attorney retained on an hourly basis secured by a charging lien has acquired an interest adverse to the client,
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 Here is an unpublished decision that faced some gnarly issues regarding jurisdictional and quantum meruit recovery issues in an attorney’s lien situation where an attorney obtained a
Part 2 of 2: Second Ten Grouping—Nos. 1-10. We already gave you our top 11-20 decisions previously this month. As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of
Conduct Was Also Protected Under Civil Code Section 47 Litigation Privilege. The First District, Division 5, in Beheshti v. Bartley, Case No. A122128 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 29, 2009) (unpublished), confronted a situation where an attorney was sued for intentional interference, conversion, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress for pursuing his contractual attorney
