Cases: Retainer Agreements

Retainer Agreements: Plaintiff Disputing Allocation To Her As Client And To Her Attorneys Lost The Fight Because The Retainer Agreement Had A Provision Stating That No Contingency Arrangements Applied To Settlements Where Individual Recovery And Fee Recovery To Counsel Were Separately Negotiated

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Plaintiff Herself Was A Sophisticated Litigant, With The Lower And Appellate Courts Finding The Retainer Agreement Was Unambiguous In The Proper Allocation. Brinkman v. Jane Doe, Case No. A173377 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 24, 2026) (unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff disputed what portion of a settlement negotiated with two different bank defendants was […]

Retainer Agreements: Law Firm Seeking To Recover More Than $1.7 Million In Fees And Costs For Its Representation Of Former Los Angeles Sheriff Alex Villanueva Loses Attempt To Enforce Engagement Letter Entered Into With Former Sheriff

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Former Sheriff Had Authority To Select, Not To Retain, Independent Counsel To Represent Him In Writ Petition Filed By County To Challenge Villanueva’s Authority To Settle A Civil Lawsuit Filed By A Terminated Deputy. When the County of Los Angeles sued former Los Angeles Sheriff Alex Villanueva and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to

Quantum Meruit, Retainer Agreements: $100,000 True Retainer Was Not That Based On Additional Qualifying, But Law Firm Was Entitled To Quantum Meruit Fees Minus An Offset For The $100,000 Retainer

Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Case Has A Very Scholarly Discussion Of Requirements For True Retainers.                Boyadzhyan v. Geragos & Geragos, APC, Case No. B324420 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 26, 2024) (unpublished) is an interesting case and, for practitioners and ethics experts, has an excellent discussion on the differences between a true retainer, fixed fee, or retainer with

Family Law, Retainer Agreements, Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Award Reversed Because Litigant Not Given Safe Harbor Notice/OSC Notice That The Sanctions Response Was Sanctionable

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Sanctions

Also, We Learn New Things All The Time—Contingency Agreements In Family Law Proceedings Are Against Public Policy.                Wright v. Wright, Case No. B330901 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2024) (unpublished) is interesting on two points:  (1) it reversed a CCP § 128.7 sanctions order against a litigant based on litigant’s response to a

Retainer Agreements: Client Funds With Law Firm Not Immune From Judgment Creditor Third-Party Level Where Law Firm Did Not Perform Any Services To Earn Compensation Under A Flat Fee Agreement

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Good Discussion Of Professional Responsibility Rule Requirements For Flat Fee Agreement Arrangements.                In Dickson v. Mann, Case No. D081851 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 16, 2024) (published), an appellate court has a discussion on who owns and how to handle client funds under a flat fee agreement.  There, it agreed with a lower court’s

Ethics, Retainer Agreements: Attorneys Could Not Keep Unearned Portion Of Fees In Flat Fee Retainer, While Client Could Not Force Disgorgement Of Pre-Withdrawal Fees Earned By Discharged Attorneys

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Rules Of Professional Conduct And Wording Of Retainer Agreement Guided The Result.                Both ex-attorneys and ex-client took draconian positions in a case involving what fees were owed by ex-client under a flat fee retainer agreement involving criminal and divorce proceedings.  Attorneys claimed they were entitled to the whole $350,000 retainer even though they did

Retainer Agreements: Retainer Agreement Provision Did Allow For An Attorney To Recover Fees Against A Client For Prevailing In A Fee Dispute

Cases: Retainer Agreements

We Quote The Successful Language Below.             In Leung v. Alivandivafa, Case No. B323416 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 26, 2023) (unpublished), attorney won a fee dispute with a client after a lower court determined that the governing contingency agreement was valid.  The lower court then awarded prevailing attorney $98,250 in fees, reducing the requested

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

Retainer Agreements: Whether Credit Card Processing Charges In California Can Be Passed On To Client Through Retainer Agreement Is An Open Question

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Most Prudent Course Is To Treat It As a Non-reimbursable “Overhead” Expense.             We commend practitioners to read Nicole Nuzzo’s article “The Credit Card Conundrum:  Passing Credit Card Processing Fees On To Client,” published in the December 2022 issue of Orange County Lawyer at pages 56-59.  In this article, she concludes it is an open

Scroll to Top