Cases: Retainer Agreements

Retainer Agreements: Medical Malpractice Contingent Fee Agreement Cannot Provide For Non-Refundable Flat Fee In Addition to Statutory Maximum Contingent Fee

Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Second District Confirms State Bar Position in One Matter in Unpublished Decision.      In Shalant v. Client Security Fund Commission for the State Bar of California, Case No. B229947 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 30, 2012) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal confirmed for us the State Bar takes the position that Business & Professions […]

In The News/Retainer Agreements: ABA Journal Summarizes Results of Recent American Lawyer Report On Alternative Fee Arrangements

Cases: Retainer Agreements, In The News

  They Are Catching On, Along With Client Requests for Discounts.      Co-contributor Mike, who is a member of the American Bar Association, found an interesting article by Debra Cassens Weiss dated January 17, 2012 in the ABA Journal Weekly Newsletter, where she summarized a recent American Lawyer report on alternative fee arrangements this way:

Retainer Agreements/In The News . . . . New York Voids Retainer Agreement Terms Discouraging Clients From Following An Exiting Attorney

Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements, In The News

  Attorney Lien “Penalty” Provision Also Invalidated.      As reported by both the American Bar Association Journal and Buffalo News in January 10, 2012 posts, New York Supreme Court Justice John A. Michalek voided two provisions in a retainer agreement apparently designed to encourage clients from following an exiting attorney to another legal firm. The

Retainer Agreements: Modification of Fee Arrangements During Attorney Representation–What Passes Muster

Cases: Retainer Agreements

  ABA Formal Opinion 11-458 Explores Modification Nuances.      We would like to thank the Orange County Bar Association’s Professionalism and Ethics Committee for a summary of ABA Formal Opinon 11-458, which is discussed in greater depth in the January 2012 edition of the Orange County Lawyer.      The ABA Opinion does indicate that fee

Retainer Agreements/Section 1717: Second District, Division 6 Finds Trope Fee Waiver Unenforceable

Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

  No Lock On Trope Waiver, But Court Finds Fees For Other Attorneys May Not Be Barred By Trope; Nonsignatory Entitled to Fees Based on Alter Ego Theory.      Here is an interesting unpublished decision from the Second District, Division 6–interesting because it parts company with the holding in Lockton v. O’Rourke, 184 Cal.App.4th 1051

Retainer Agreements: Fourth District, Division 3 Refuses To Extend Santa Clara And Clancy To Disqualify Firm Not Representing Water District For Public Benefit

Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Water District Did Not Sue in a Representative or User Capacity.      Our state supreme court in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 35 (2010) [reviewed in our July 27, 2010 post] and People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 740 (1985) found that a heightened duty of neutrality

Retainer Agreements: Attorneys Have No Duty To Separately Explain An Arbitration Clause In Second Retainer Agreement Re-Upped When Attorney Moved To New Firm

Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Ruling Expressly Limited to Sophisticated Business Clients.      In Desert Outdoor Advertising v. Superior Court (Murphy), Case No. A129051 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 17, 2011) (certified for publication), an appellate court held that a lawyer having clients signing a new retainer agreement with an arbitration clause when lawyer changed firms, even though the

Civil Rights/Retainer Agreements: Section 1988 Fee Recovery Right Cannot Be Assigned By Litigant/Client To Attorney

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Ninth Circuit So Held in Pony.      A recent memorandum decision in a Ninth Circuit case reminds all of you civil rights practitioner of an important caveat: clients own the rights to fees under federal civil rights cases such that they cannot be assigned to their attorneys. However, attorney’s lien rights might lead to

Retainer Agreements: 40% Contingency Fee Agreement Found Enforceable When Departing Associate Waived Any Right To Any Of Fees Charged By Discharged Firm For Prior Work

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Pegging 40% Agreement As Quantum Meruit Recovery Was No Abuse.      A client in Anwyl, Scoffield, & Stepp v. Blackhurst, Case No. C059899 (3d Dist. Mar. 25, 2011) (unpublished) was not happy with the affirmance of a decision in which she was held liable to pay plaintiff law firm under a 40% contingency fee agreement

Retainer Agreements: “Framework” Retainer Agreements Do Not Create A Current Attorney-Client Relationship Agreement Between Counsel And Former Client

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Fourth District, Division 3 Distinguishes “Framework” From Classic Retainer Agreements.      In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior Court (City of Newport Beach), Case No. G044223 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 22, 2011) (certified for publication), our local Santa Ana appellate court decided that a “framework” retainer agreement–an open-ended agreement affording counsel the option to create

Scroll to Top