Matter Remanded To Determine Scope Of Security Agreement. We commend that all attorneys, with respect to collection of fees, read Rice v. Downs, Case No. B307780 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 27, 2021) (partially published) where the Court of Appeal, with some remand limited instructions, did seem to validate a security agreement/ UCC-1 filing […]
After MFAA Arbitration, Ex-Attorney Rightly Went To Contractual Arbitration; Argument That Block Billing Violates B&P Section 6148 Is Rejected Although Retainer Said Attorney Could Block Bill. In Kling v. Horn, Case No. B305967 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 14, 2021) (unpublished), defendant ex-attorney, after engaging in a Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (FAA) under which
Contingency Agreement Provided Client Would Pay For All Costs, With Quantum Meruit Equitable Principles Bolstering The Conclusion. Henry M. Lee Law Corp. v. Chang, Case No. B288895 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 29, 2021) (unpublished) was quite an odyssey. Law firm agreed to represent client in a wage/hour case under a 50% contingency agreement
Termination Provisions Set Fee Recovery With Reasonable Hourly Rates. In David Allen, APLC v. Gentry, Case No. A160180 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 15, 2021) (unpublished), client terminated an attorney where the Retainer contained a provision stating, “I agree this Agreement may be terminated by either Attorney or me. In the event of termination,
Trial Judge Did Reduce Requested Lodestar By More Than $70,000—About 60% Of The Request, Although Refusing To Award A Positive 1.5 Multiplier. Landlords in Duncan v. Kihagi, Case No. A154678 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 6, 2021) (unpublished), were not pleased when a trial judge awarded $910,752.50 in fees in favor of the winning
Plaintiff’s Initial Non-Binding Arbitration Win Of $1,325 Was Vacated In Superior Court, So Plaintiff Hired A Paralegal Years Later To Help Draft A Complaint That Ultimately Invited A Motion To Strike. Corey v. Mudgett, Case No. D077532 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 22, 2021) (unpublished) does not directly involve the appeal of an attorney
Retainer Agreement’s Broadly-Worded Fee Provision Allowed For Recovery Of Fees For Attorney’s Defense Of All Claims By Former Client, Including Tort Claims – The Defense Of Which Were Necessary To Defeat The Contractual Claim. In Singh v. Molnar, Case No. B303366 (2d Dist., Div. 7 April 30, 2021) (unpublished), defendant attorney was awarded $1,232,735
Contractual Breach/Quantum Meruit Claims Did Not Succeed On Behalf Of Noncompliant Attorney Seeking Deed Of Trust Recovery. In Bishop v. Middleton, Case No. B299145 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 20, 2021) (unpublished), attorney sought to recover attorney’s fees under breach of contract and quantum meruit theories against a client on the theory that a
Attorney Obtained Substantial Pretrial Attachment, But He Did Not Obtain Substantial Interest On Delinquent Fees Because No Interest Provision Was Present In The Retainer Agreement. Pech v. Morgan, Case No. B300524 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 11, 2021) (published) is an instructive decision indicating how enforceable, compliant fee agreements are dealt with in pretrial
No Direct Authority On Point, But Reasoning From One Decision Drove The Conclusion. Lee v. Newman, Case No. E073745 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 4, 2021) (unpublished), a messy attorney-client retainer agreement/conversion dispute, is noteworthy for one issue which we found to be of interest. There, a client argued that an attorney’s contingency agreement
