Fifth District So Holds Even After County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court. Earlier this year, in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 35 (reviewed in our July 27, 2010 post), the California Supreme Court narrowed the holding of its prior Clancy decision to permit contingency fee agreements in […]
Trial and Appellate Court Rebuff Criminal Client’s Challenges to Retainers. In Faal v. Davis, Case No. B219520 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 14, 2010) (unpublished), a criminal lawyer represented a client later found guilty on major counts of the criminal case after having obtained a retainer of $250,000 for the criminal trial work and
Second District, Division 4 Affirms Lower Court’s Section 6147 Ruling. Contingency fee retention agreement modifications must meet with Business and Professions Code section 6147’s requirements for the contents of the agreement. If not, the modification likely will be found unenforceable, meaning that the attorney will lose the added fees that would have stemmed
The Court Sets Forth Specific Guidelines to Avoid Compromising Ethical Considerations. On June 27, 2010, we posted about the fact that Louisiana and Wisconsin are two states that do not allow the attorney general to hire a private attorney for a contingency fee. This limitation is proving to be especially significant in Louisiana, in the
Carole J. Buckner Surveys Recent Developments in May 2010 Orange County Lawyer Article. Carole J. Buckner, a Special Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct Professor at Western State College of Law, and Chair of the California State Bar’s Committee on Professionalism and Conduct (COPRAC), has written an article aptly entitled “Modification of Lawyer-Client Fee
Diane Karpman, a legal ethics expert, has the following reminders for “tuning up” attorney-client retention agreements: Lawyers should consult the State Bar fee forms on the California State Bar website, because they represent the “gold standard”—tested, blessed and familiar to fee arbitrators. Include a disclaimer of any guarantee, result or successful outcome. Specifically
Sample Retainer Arbitration Clause Is Also Included. In our 2009 year end summary (Part 2 of 2), we examined the California Supreme Court’s decision in Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, 45 Cal.4th 557 (2009), which examined the interplay between the California Arbitration Act and the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act. It
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
No. 1: Ellen Peck Reviews “Fees, Fee Agreements & Arbitrations” in December 2009 Edition of CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL. Ellen R. Peck, an Escondido sole practitioner and former State Bar Court judge, made these points in her recent California Bar Journal article: Except in limited circumstances, most private attorneys have to notify clients they
Second District, Division 8 Reinforces the Lesson in Recent Unpublished Decision. In Law Offices of Nejadpour & Associates v. Gonzalez, Case No. B212803 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 9, 2009) (unpublished), a professional law corporation (PLC) successfully won a judgment for delinquent fees from a former client. The retainer agreement had a fees clause.
