Cases: Retainer Agreements

Ethics, Retainer Agreements: On Remand, Trial Court Properly Found Equitable Estoppel Did Not Alter The Rule Invalidating Fee Sharing Among Attorneys

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Equitable Estoppel Theory Was Not Supported By The Evidence.             On December 19, 2012, we posted on Barnes, Crosby, Fitzgerald & Zeman, LLP v. Ringler, 212 Cal.App.4th 172 (2012) [discussed in our December 19, 2012 post], which held that a party may be equitably estopped from enforcing the rule which prohibits attorney fee splitting where […]

Ethics, Retainer Agreements: California Supreme Court Decides That Undisclosed Conflict Of Interest Rendered Retention Agreement And Arbitration Award Unenforceable, But Remands For Trial Court To Consider If Quantum Meruit Recovery Was Permissible

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Lots of Questions Remain, Given This Was Not An FAA Case; However, Boilerplate Conflict Waivers Do Not Do The Trick.             The California Supreme Court has just come out with a widely-watched opinion in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Case No. S232946 (Cal. Supreme Court August 30, 2018) (published), although it

Retainer Agreements: Los Angeles County Superior Court Invalidates Oral Entertainment “Handshake” Fee Contingency Deals Not In Writing

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Case Involved Johnny Depp, And May Send Some Ripples Through Entertainment Industry.             This next case, although only at a state superior court level, may send some shock waves on how entertainment agreements are structured between actors and their lawyers.             What happened here is that Johnny Depp challenged millions of dollars paid out to

Retainer Agreement, Section 1717: Law Firm Suing For Breach Of Oral Agreement To Provide Legal Services, Based On Continued Applicability Of Retainer Agreement, Resulted In Law Firm Exposure Under Retainer Fees Clause

Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

Ex-Clients Won $38,841 In Section 1717 Fees After Prevailing On A Summary Judgment Motion.             Many California retainer agreements between lawyers and clients have attorney’s fees provisions and provisions indicating that any further requested work, even if oral, will proceed under the terms of the written retainer agreements. When both of these features are present,

Retention Agreements:  Riverside County Bar Association Fee Arbitrators Find Enforceable A Hybrid Retention Agreement Providing For A Contingency To Attorney If Successful, Plus A Feature That Attorney’s Fees And Costs Awarded For The Success Are Kept

Cases: Retainer Agreements

$304,570.00 Was Fee Award To Attorney, Plus $35,000 More For Post-Trial Work On A Quantum Meruit Basis.             We would like to thank Gregory M. Burke of CGA Ventures, Inc. for sharing with us the Findings and Award by the Riverside County Bar Association’s Fee Arbitration Program in a fee dispute with a former client.

Retainer Agreements:  Third Circuit Court Of Appeals, In Nonprecedential Decision, Holds That Binding Arbitration In Retainer Agreement Is Enforceable Under Federal Arbitration Act

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Client’s Informed Consent On Arbitration Clause Was Determinative.             In Smith v. Lindemann, No. 16-3357 (3d Cir. 2017) (non-precedential), an individual sued her former divorce attorney for malpractice even though the services agreements contained a standard arbitration clause saying that the parties “agree to submit such disagreements in binding arbitration.”  The lower court enforced the

Retainer Agreements:  North Carolina Court Of Appeals Rules That Small Firm Seeking Fees Cannot Represent Itself Where Firm Attorneys Were Necessary To Prove Existence Of Contract

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Disqualification Would Not Have Happened If Just Amount Of Fees At Dispute.             Although this is a case from outside of California, we post on it to show potential disqualification issues which might arise when a firm representing itself in a fee dispute must prove more than just the reasonableness of fees being requested.            

Liens For Attorney’s Fees/Judgment Enforcement/Retainer Agreements:  Two Unpublished Decisions Discuss These Issues

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Attorney’s Liens/Retainer Agreements—Primo Hospitality Group, Inc. v. The Americana At Brand, LLC, Case No. B271188 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 17, 2017) (Unpublished).             In this case, which involved some interesting third-party creditor and offset issues of interest to judgment collection attorneys, the appellate court did agree that attorney’s liens do not have to comply

Retainer Agreements: Contingent Attorney’s Failure To Define “Recovery” With Specificity Prevented Recovery For Work To Obtain Satisfaction Of Adverse Trademark Judgment Against Clients.

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Recovery Only Applied To Money Received By Clients, Teaching That Ambiguous Retainer Agreement Language Will Be Construed Against The Drafting Attorney.               Justice Fybel, the author of a 3-0 affirming opinion in Kadin v. ABS Power Brake Inc., Case No. G052734 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 21, 2017) (unpublished), reminds us practitioners, especially litigators, to

Scroll to Top