Cases: Referral Agreements

Ethics, Referral Agreements: Joint Venture Agreement Between Two Firms, Where One Firm Failed To Register As A Professional Law Corporation, Was Not Unenforceable As Against Public Policy

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Referral Agreements

No Clients Were Harmed, So Enforcing The Agreement Was Fine Under The Circumstances.                In Liberty Law Office, Inc. v. The Bloom Firm, Case Nos. A165269 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2024) (unpublished; opn. modified and rehearing denied), arbitrators, the lower court, and the appellate court all agreed that a Joint Venture […]

Quantum Meruit, Referral Agreements: Client Only Signing A Disclosure And Acknowledgment Understanding Letter Section Did Not Give Written Consent As Required Under Former Rule 2-200 Of State Bar Rules Of Professional Conduct For Referral Agreements

Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Referral Agreements

Result Was Reversal As A Matter Of Law Of Jury Verdict Based On Contractual Breach And Quantum Meruit, Because Contract Was Unenforceable And QM Claim Was Time Barred.             Reeve v. Meleyco, Case No. C085867 (3d Dist. Mar. 24, 2020) (published) is an ethics reminder to all practitioners to get an express written consent from

Class Action/Referral Agreements: $310 Million Fee Recovery Fixed In Long-Standing Federal Antitrust Case

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Referral Agreements

       As reported by Andrew Longstreth in an April 4, 2013 post at Thomson Reuters News & Insight, N.D. Cal. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston awarded dozens of plaintiffs’ law firms $310 million in attorney’s fees in a long-running antitrust price-fixing case where over $1 billion in settlements were obtained in a dispute over

Class Actions/Equity/Referral Agreements: Attorney May Be Equitably Estopped From Enforcing Fee-Sharing Agreement Violations Where Attorney Prevented Other Participating Attorneys From Compliance With Fee-Sharing Requirements

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Equity, Cases: Referral Agreements

  Equity Can Play a Role In These Disputes, Rules Fourth District, Division 3.      Barnes, Crosby, Fitzgerald & Zeman, LLP v. Ringler, Case No. G045872 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 19, 2012) (published) goes to show you that equity does interplay with ethical fee-sharing restrictions.      Here, the Fourth District, Division 3, in a

Referral Agreements: Attorney Suing Another Attorney For Quantum Meruit, Breach Of Contract, Fraud And Interference For Division Of Fees From Settlement Did Not Recover Anything

Cases: Referral Agreements

Third District Finds No Remedy Available Against Other Attorney and Applies Litigation Privilege in Sustaining Defense Judgment.      In a decision just recently certified for publication, the Third District affirmed a defense judgment in a case involving a dispute between two attorneys over the division of fees in a personal injury action that settled. The

Fee-Sharing Agreement: Defendant Clients Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Where No Fee Entitlement in Fee-Sharing Agreement

Cases: Referral Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Fees Clause in Contingency Agreement Was Inconsequential.      Earlier, in our September 21, 2008 post, we reported on Strong v. Beydoun, 166 Cal.App.4th 1398 (2008), where defendant clients owed no unjust enrichment recovery to an attorney who failed to obtain clients’ signatures to a fee-sharing agreement with clients’ other counsel.

Ellen Peck’s January 2009 Article In California Bar Journal Has Nice Tips For Recovering Fees in Contingency, Limited Partner, Executor, and Client Fee Sharing Representations

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Probate, Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Referral Agreements, Cases: Retainer Agreements, CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

  Ms. Peck Reviews Stroud, Shimko, Miller, and Strong Decisions.      Ellen R. Peck, a former State Bar Court judge and Encino solo practitioner, has written a fine article in the January 2009 edition of the California Bar Journal with astute tips of upfront, prophylactic actions that can be taken for successfully recovering fees in

Fee-Splitting Agreement Not Disclosed To Court In Class Action Fairness Proceedings Precluded Later Suit To Enforce The Agreement

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Referral Agreements

California Rule of Court 3.769(b) Compels Heightened Disclosure and Scrutiny in Class Action Contexts.             In our July 28, 2008 post, we discussed Manley v. Burunsuzyan, an unpublished decision that reinforced the need for client consent to a fee-splitting arrangement between counsel pursuant to Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 2-200(A).  Aside from

Oral Referral Agreements Between Attorneys—Make Sure They Are Confirmed In Retainer Agreement or Side Letter Copied to All Involved Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Cases: Referral Agreements

Second District, Division Four Affirms Jury Verdict Finding No Oral Referral Agreement.             An oral referral agreement between attorneys—typically, where an attorney takes a plaintiff’s case and agrees to pay a percentage of the eventual recovery to the referring attorney—is enforceable.  (Mink v. Maccabee, 121 Cal.App.4th 835, 838.) The only writing required

Scroll to Top