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

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 Mar. 25, 2011) (unpublished) was not happy with the affirmance of a decision in which she was held liable to pay plaintiff law firm under a 40% contingency fee agreement

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

  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

  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