Cases: Retainer Agreements

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Liens For Attorney’s Fees/Judgment Enforcement/Retainer Agreements:  Two Unpublished Decisions Discuss These Issues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Hospitality Group, Inc. v. The Americana At Brand, LLC, Case No. B271188 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 17, 2017) (Unpublished).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author of a 3-0 affirming opinion in Kadin v. ABS Power Brake Inc., Case No. G052734 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 21, 2017) (unpublished), reminds us practitioners, especially litigators, to

Retainer Agreements: ABA Formal Opinion 475 Explains How To Treat Received Fees Where Different Attorneys Have Disparate Interests In The Funds

Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Opinion Was Issued On December 7, 2016.      ABA Formal Opinion 475 addresses how to deal with received fees from a client when different attorneys provided services to the client. Actually, a two part process is involved: (1) the fees must be held by the receiving attorney separate from the lawyer’s own separate property

Deadlines/Equity/Retainer Agreements: Invalid Attorney-Client Retention Agreement Meant Attorney Collection Suit Was Subject To 2-Year Quantum Meruit Statute Of Limitations

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Equity, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Attorney Sued Too Late, With Account Stated Count Not Lengthening The 2-Year SOL.       Leighton v. Forster, Case No. A145601 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 9, 2017) (published), is an interesting case to show how a noncompliant engagement letter leaves the attorney to seek recovery of fees in quantum meruit, which is governed by

Fee Clause Interpretation, Retainer Agreements: Broad Retainer Attorney’s Fees Clause Encompassing “Any Dispute” Allowed For Fee Recovery In Legal Malpractice Action

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Action Sounded In Both Contract And Tort, So Recovery Allowed.     In GoTek Energy, Inc. v. SoCal IP Law Group, LLP, Case No. B266681 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 12, 2016) (published), an initial law firm providing patent application work for a client beat back a legal malpractice action based on the governing statute

4/3 DCA Trifecta: Appellate Court Issues Three Fee Unpublished Decisions

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Settlement

Source:  Wikipedia.  Article “Trifecta.” Prevailing Party/Settlement: Goldenwest Plaza, LLC v. The Frank and Gertrude R. Doyle Foundation, Case No. G050766 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2016) (Unpublished) –Split Result Meant No Prevailing Party.      This case was a messy partition case where differing ownership interests with disputes on management of a shopping center brought

Appealability/Retainer Agreements: Attorney Failing To Get Fee-Splitting Written Consents Knocked Out Of The Box

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  No Equitable Exception Applied, Plus Appeal From Post-Trial Motion To Tax Costs Order Could Not Be Entertained By Failure To Specifically Appeal It.     McNulty v. Ottosi, Case No. B264239 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 11, 2016) (unpublished) has a series of lessons for attorneys entering into fee-splitting arrangements.      Above:  Splitting.  Library of

Arbitration/Retainer Agreements: July 2016 Issue Of “Orange County Lawyer” Has Interview With Orange County Bar Association’s Mandatory Fee Arbitration Committee Co-Chairs

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Eric S. Blum And David J. Hesseltine Provide Some Tips On What Fee Arbitrators Focus On In Mandatory Fee Arbitrations.       Under the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.), attorneys and clients must first arbitrate a fee dispute through a local county bar’s fee arbitration process unless that

Scroll to Top