Cases: Retainer Agreements

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 Mar. 25, 2011) (unpublished) was not happy with the affirmance of a decision in which she was held liable to pay plaintiff law firm under a 40% contingency fee agreement […]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

Retainer Agreements/Section 1717/Reasonableness of Fees: Client Winner Against Attorney After Voiding Retainer Agreement Was Entitled to 1717 Fee Recovery

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

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 Jan. 4, 2011) (unpublished) was

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Attorney’s Decision Fees Decisions–Part 2 of 2.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

     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

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Attorney’s Fees Decisions In 2010–Part 1 of 2.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Equity, Cases: Probate, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 998, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

     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

Retainer Agreements: Engagement Letter Delineating Representation Of Trustee In Representative Capacity Meant Trustee Not Individually Liable For Fees

Cases: Retainer Agreements

  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

In The News/Retainer Agreements: L.A. Superior Court Judge Allows Spector Challenge To Criminal Retainer Agreement To Proceed Before A Jury

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Retainer Agreements, In The News

  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

Retainer Agreements/Ethics: Business & Prof. Code, § 6147 Requirements Apply To Hybrid Contingency Agreements Involving Transactional Work

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Retainer Agreements

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

Scroll to Top