Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Probate: Trust Payment Of Attorney’s Fees Must Be Documented Specifically Once Objections Are Made

Cases: Probate, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

First District, Division 1 Makes the Point for Specific Substantiation in Recent Unpublished Decision.      Probate law requires more specific substantiation to justify trust payments of attorney’s fees than is required in civil litigation—although our recent posts have still lobbied that time sheets and detailed breakdowns are advisable no matter what the context. The need […]

SLAPP and Fee Substantiation: Itemized Billing Statements/Evidence About Reasonableness Of Hourly Rate And Hours Expended Not Required In Fee Proceedings

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Sufficient Substantiation in Attorney Declaration Attesting to Actual Number of Hours Worked and Attorney’s Billing Rate.      Many practitioners might think that itemized billing statements and evidence on reasonableness of rates/hours expended are essentials in a fee petition proceeding. Although highly advisable, the next case reinforces that such detailed substantiation

Discovery Sanctions: Court Of Appeal Sustains $29,180 Discovery Sanctions Fee Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Winning Litigant Properly Allocated Fees.      In Bohl v. Pryke, Case No. E045405 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 1, 2009) (unpublished), a defendant in a “reporter’s shield law” case refused to reveal sources. However, he also apparently refused to answer legitimate discovery, drawing the lower court’s ire. The trial court

Civil Code Section 1717 and Fee Clauses Interpretation: Appellate Court Reverses $1,370,604 Fee Award Because Some Recovery Was On Uncovered Fraud Counts And Winner’s Limited Success Required Some Further Apportionment

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

First District, Division 4 Believed Award Needed to Apportion Out Some Fraud Work and Take Into Account Plaintiff’s Limited Success on the Promissory Note Claims.      Who says that appellate courts blindly rubberstamp fee awards by trial courts? The next case certainly demonstrates that this is not the case, with the reviewing courts making sure

Contempt Attorney’s Fees Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1218(a) Are Vacated Based On Failure To Apportion And On Due Process Grounds

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Fourth District, Division 3 Also Finds That Fee Clarifying Substantiation in Reply Brief Was Too Late Unless Opponent Given Opportunity for Further Response.      Code of Civil Procedure section 1218(a) provides for attorney’s fees to “the party initiating the contempt” for fees which that party incurred “in connection with the contempt proceeding.” It is

Permissive Fees In A Family Civil Harassment Lawsuit Properly Denied Where Inadequate Record Presented Below And Trial Court Found Fees To Be Unreasonable In Amount

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Second District, Division 3 Sustains Denial of Fees under Family Code section 6344(a).      The next case reinforces the notion that if you are going to appeal, make sure you develop an adequate record on review—especially so when a fee entitlement statute is permissive and any fee ruling is scrutinized under the abuse of

Winning County Teacher’s Challenge To $180,000 Fee Award Under Education Code Section 44944(e)(2) Affirmed

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Second District, Division Two Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Not Awarding $300,670 in Attorney’s Fees to Winning Teacher.      The next case concerns a statutory fee-shifting statute—Education Code section 44944(e)(2). It also is an interesting illustration of how appellate courts vary in finding whether a lower court should have articulated the basis for its

Class Actions: Third District Publishes Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Case

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Decision Discussed in Our January 28, 2009 Post.      In our January 28, 2009 post, we discussed Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Case, where the Third District affirmed a $4 million class action fee award that represented 1.4% of the settlement fund recovery and a 2.52 multiplier enhancement on a $1.4 million lodestar.      Yesterday,

Out-of-State Attorneys: Don’t Despair—Ninth Circuit Holds You Can Get Paid As A Consultant Even Though You Are Not California Licensed Or Not Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Holding Draws A Sharp Dissent; Opinion Also Discusses Lodestar and Sufficiency of Fee Substantiation.      The next case should spur the interest of non-California lawyers wishing to do limited consultation or limited co-counseling with California lawyers in California federal courts. Even if you are not licensed in California or do not obtain pro hac vice

Class Action: Court Of Appeal Sustains 1.4% Fund Recovery And 2.52 Lodestar Multiplier In Consumer Class Action

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Third District Sustains Substantial Fee Award in Unpublished Decision.      Who says that class action attorneys are greedy? No matter what your bent, the next case is a refreshing example of how substantial fees are justified in a class action settlement generating substantial recovery for class members.

Scroll to Top