Cases: Retainer Agreements

Ethics, Retainer Agreements: New California Ethics Opinion Under Consideration Addresses Whether “Conversion Clauses” In Contingency Agreements Are Ethically Permissible

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Unfairly Shackling Client On Key Decisions And Unconscionable Arrangements Likely Will Be Under Scrutiny. Although it has not yet been adopted and remains open for public comment, the California State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has issued Formal Opinion Interim No. 20-0005. The proposed opinion addresses when “conversion clauses” in California contingency

Liens For Attorney Fees, Retainer Agreements: Plaintiff’s Failure To Obtain A Valid Fee Division Agreement With Other Law Firm Members, After She Left, Means That The Other Attorneys Faced No Fee Exposure For Disbursing Recovery Funds

Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements

The Contractual Attorney’s Lien Was Between Plaintiff And The Client, So No Fiduciary Duty Was Owed By The Other Firm Members To Plaintiffs. In Palmieri v. Foondos, Case No. C100383 (3d Dist. June 22, 2026) (unpublished), a fight developed between plaintiff and other members of a law firm she left with respect to recovery of

Lodestar, Retainer Agreements: After Lower Court Determined That Retainer Agreement Was Unconscionable And Determined Client Owed Nothing Under A Quantum Meruit Recovery, The Appellate Court Reduced The Contractual Fee Award To Client For Dilatory Conduct

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Retainer Agreements

This Case Shows How, Even On Appeal, Justices Will Try To Balance Equity On Fee Awards. In Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae v. Yakobi, Case No. B338762 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 3, 2026) (unpublished), a client won a fee dispute against her former attorneys, with the lower court finding certain provisions

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 Brinkman v. Jane Doe, Case No. A173377 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 24, 2026) (unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff disputed what portion of a settlement negotiated with two different bank defendants was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

Scroll to Top