So Says a Study from The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies published a recent study based on 2,054 cases tried from 2002-2005. From those surveyed cases, 61% of plaintiffs received verdicts less than the last settlement offer, while 24% of defendants made the wrong decision by paying […]
No. 1: Ellen Peck Reviews “Fees, Fee Agreements & Arbitrations” in December 2009 Edition of CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL. Ellen R. Peck, an Escondido sole practitioner and former State Bar Court judge, made these points in her recent California Bar Journal article: Except in limited circumstances, most private attorneys have to notify clients they
Fifth District So Decides In Unpublished Decision of Interest to All Litigators. In a refrain used by us and other bloggers, we do stress there are some decisions that are must reading for certain practitioners. Well, the next one is—for all attorneys notifying the trial court about a conditional or unconditional settlement. It
Fourth District, Division 3 Utilizes De Novo Review to Determine Plaintiff’s Entitlement to Fee Award. The next case demonstrates how the standard of review can be appeal determinative. The appellate panel utilized the de novo standard, which led to the conclusion that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff entitlement to fees under car
State Bar’s Standing Committee Issues Formal Opinion Confirming Propriety of these Settlements. Formal Opinion No. 2009-176 of the State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has concluded that (a) a lawyer does not violate any ethical obligation by recommending or conveying a fee-waiver settlement offer in a given case, and (2) a
First District, Division 3 Highlights Pitfalls of CCP Section 664.6 in the Retention of Jurisdiction Area. Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 concerns judicial enforcement of settlement agreements through an expeditious motion procedure. The last sentence of this provision states: “If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to
Third Circuit Court of Appeals So Holds Under 42 U.S. C. Section 1988; California State Court Decisions Split In Analogous Areas, But Ninth Circuit Disagrees. On July 23, 2009, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Lohman v. Duryea Borough, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 2183056 (3d Cir. 2009), affirmed a district judge’s decision
Fourth District, Division 2 Reminds Fee-Shifting Plaintiffs To Not Eschew Early Compromise Proposals. The next case reminds all of us that the system is geared for resolution—resolution being another word for settlement early on in the game, under the right circumstances, under the right case, and under reasonable efforts to resolve the matter. Miss
Second District, Division 7 Reverses Award in Published Decision. For years, insurance carriers have raised due process concerns to their participation in mediation and mandatory settlement conferences, although more and more court rules require their participation in these processes. However, the next case illustrates that carriers are not subject to “bad faith” settlement
Fourth District, Division 3 Strictly Enforces Jurisdictional Retention Dictates. Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, we hope, becomes well known to litigators and other attorneys hoping to summarily enforce settlement agreements in pending California actions. Without going into all of its nuances (which include strict requirements that the parties themselves assent to the settlement
