They Are Normally Upheld If Not the Product of Fraud. In the on-line March 2011 issue of the California Bar Journal, Diane Karpman has written an article discussing the pros and cons of “true” retainers. Of the true retainer, "rare and exotic," Ms. Karpman writes: "Some lawyers find the idea of being paid […]
Sixth District Rejected 1717 Mutuality Challenge, But Did Remand For Determination of Reasonable Fee After Proof Failure. Here is a very interesting one at the top of a new year in the retainer agreement/Civil Code section 1717/reasonableness of fees areas. Palmer v. Taylor, Case No. H033644 (6th Dist. Jan. 4, 2011) (unpublished) was
Here is the second installment of our top 20 decisions. 10. Jankey v. Lee, 181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (1st Dist., Div. 4 2010), review granted, No. S180890 (May 12, 2010) — authored by Presiding Justice Ruvolo; discussed in our Feb. 6, 2010 post. Attorney’s fees are awardable to a prevailing defendant under Civil
Above: Wrapping It Up. As we wish all readers the happiest of Holidays, we now present our top 20 published decisions from California appellate courts or the Ninth Circuit. This list is not meant to slight other important decisions in certain areas, but these are the ones that “rose to the top” from
Second District, Division 5 Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Client. Retainer agreements usually are enforced by their terms, with any unambiguous language governing in any event and ambiguous language most often construed against the drafting lawyer. The next case illustrates that the “scope of representation” language, if precise, will be construed as
Criminal Defense Attorney Robert Shapiro’s Summary Judgment Bid Rejected. As reported by Adam Popescu in a December 17, 2010 online post of the Beverly Hills Courier, noted criminal defense attorney Robert Shapiro’s firm had a retainer agreement to provide legal services to now imprisoned, music producer Phil Spector. Mr. Shapiro claims that the
Second District, Division 4 Faces Issues of First Impression Under § 6147. Justice Manella, speaking for a 3-0 panel of the Second District, Divison 4, faced some first impression legal issues with respect to the reach of Business and Professions Code section 6147’s requirements over certain hybrid contingency agreements. In particular, the appellate court
Fifth District So Holds Even After County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court. Earlier this year, in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 35 (reviewed in our July 27, 2010 post), the California Supreme Court narrowed the holding of its prior Clancy decision to permit contingency fee agreements in
Trial and Appellate Court Rebuff Criminal Client’s Challenges to Retainers. In Faal v. Davis, Case No. B219520 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 14, 2010) (unpublished), a criminal lawyer represented a client later found guilty on major counts of the criminal case after having obtained a retainer of $250,000 for the criminal trial work and
Second District, Division 4 Affirms Lower Court’s Section 6147 Ruling. Contingency fee retention agreement modifications must meet with Business and Professions Code section 6147’s requirements for the contents of the agreement. If not, the modification likely will be found unenforceable, meaning that the attorney will lose the added fees that would have stemmed
