Cases: Retainer Agreements

Arbitration/Prevailing Party/Retainer Agreements: Law Firm Winning Malpractice Phase Of Arbitration And Judicial Confirmation Award Proceedings Entitled To Recovery Of Over $2.19 Million In Attorney’s Fees Against Sophisticated Former Client Defenda

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Arbitration Fee Clause Broad Enough to Encompass Torts, and Trope Waiver Clause Enforced For Judicial Confirmation Recovery Fees By Law Firm Personnel.      This next 2-1 decision, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan v. Kurtin, Case No. B250245 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jul. 28, 2014) (unpublished), is an interesting one involving affirmance of an arbitration […]

Civil Rights/Deadlines/Retainer Agreements: In A Wild One, FEHA Plaintiffs Garner $542,142.50 Fee/$10,642.50 Cost Award Despite Fee Motion Being Filed Two Years Down The Line

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Extraordinary Circumstances Justified Noncompliance With Deadlines, And Client/Attorney Agreement On How To Divide Statutory Fee Awards Did Not Violate Any Ethical Prohibitions.      Blythe v. County of Riverside, Case No. E055186 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 16, 2014) (unpublished) is a wild FEHA fee/costs award case encompassing deadline, standing, and retainer agreement divisions of

Retainer Agreements: Trope Prohibition—A Suggestion On How To Potentially Recoup With The Right Retainer Language

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Gerald Knapton Provides Some Insights In Recent July 2014 California Lawyer. ​For anyone following our blog, you know about the Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 292 (1995) prohibition which bans in pro per lawyers (subject to jurisprudence on lawyers truly involved with in pro per representation versus those truly advocating their independent interests in

Equity/Lodestar/Multiplier/Retainer Agreement: $7.8 Million Fee Recovery For Well Known L.A. Attorney’s Work In Divorce Cases Reversed

Cases: Equity, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  No Written Retainer Agreement, With Quantum Meruit Jury Verdict Overturned And Reduced To $1.8 Million Plus Some Other Deductions.      This is a doozy of a case involving well known Los Angeles attorney Hillel Chodos, who happened to not have had a written hourly or contingency retainer agreement with an ex-client, a wife involved

POOF!/Retainer Agreement/Prevailing Party and Section 1717: Appellate Court’s Reversal of Fee Disgorgement Order Meant Remand Necessary To See Who Prevailed

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

  Client’s Fee/Costs Recovery of $688,634 Goes POOF! For Now.      In Fleischman v. Law Office of Paul Stanton, Case No. B216898 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 12, 2014) (unpublished), which involved nasty conservatorship/elder abuse claims among trust beneficiaries with respect to a deceased trustee, client was able to invalidate a retainer agreement which placed

Retainer Agreement: Invalidity Of Attorney Lien Provision Does Not Invalidate Attempts To Recover For Breach Of Retainer Agreement Or Recover Fees Under Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Failure to Appeal Fee Order Was Dispositive, But Invalidity Ruling Was Back Up Reason Fee Recovery Was Allowable Anyway.      In Pierson v. Burlison, Case No. B244908 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 22, 2014) (unpublished), the appellate court decided two things of interest in the retainer agreement/fee areas: (1) an invalid attorney’s lien

POOF!/Retainer Agreements: Although Attorney’s Retainers Had Unlawful Provisions, Attorney Did Not Seek To Enforce Them, With Disgorgement Of Previously Paid Fees Reversed

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Appellate Court Also Reversed and Remanded Fee Award Against Attorney in Light of Disgorgement Reversal.      This next case, Fleischman v. Stanton, Case No. B216898 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 19, 2013) (unpublished), is a wild one involving an ex-attorney whose retainer agreement was voided as well as having the trial judge ordering him

Probate/Retainer Agreements: Deceased Attorney Entitled To Contingency Fee Recovery, After His Death, Where Retainer Agreement Specified Work Could Be Delegated To Other Attorneys

Cases: Probate, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Because Contingency Related to Work for Beneficiaries Apart from Estate Benefits, No Compliance Necessary With Probate Code Court Approval Requirements.      Okay, readers, here is an interesting cross-over case involving probate, retainer agreements, and contingency awards. The case is Sare v. Shad, Case No. C069573 (3d Dist. July 31, 2013) (unpublished).      In this

Retainer Agreements/Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Fee Agreement Directing Payment To Attorneys Given Deference In Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act Case

Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Retainer Agreement Trumped Everything.      USA v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, Case No. 07-56549 (9th Cir. July 17, 2013) (for publication) shows that fee agreements directing payment of fees to attorneys from a collective perspective can and do make a difference.      In this one, a suspended California corporation had assigned collection of fees

Scroll to Top