Client Is Not Aggrieved or Does Not Have Beneficial Interest for Purposes of Seeking Review of Attorney Sanctions Order.
Attorneys get socked with a $12,504 sanctions order under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 in construction defect litigation. Their client then appeals or seeks writ review of the adverse order. Result? Client has no real skin in the game, so that attorneys should have appealed or sought writ review themselves (as objectors).
This was the ruling of the Fourth District, Division 1 in Government Employers Ins. Co. v. Tower Glass, Inc., Case Nos. D051649 & D051846 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 26, 2009) (unpublished).
Even though sanctions over $5,000 are appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(12), client lacked standing to appeal the sanctions against their attorney because client was not the aggrieved party. (Calhoun v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist., 20 Cal.App.4th 39, 42-43 (1993); Laborde v. Aronson, 92 Cal.App.43th 459, 465 (2001); Taylor v. Varga, 37 Cal.App.4th 750, 761 & fn. 12 (1995).) In response, client mainly relied on Eichenbaum v. Alon, 106 Cal.App.4th 967, 974 (2003), where an appellate court liberally construed a notice of appeal by client to encompass an appeal by the attorney also when sanctions were ordered jointly against client and attorney. How did the Fourth District, Division 1 deal with this authority? Answer: “We do not find Eichenbaum’s analysis persuasive, and we do not follow it.” (Slip Opn., at p. 17.) “Eichenbaum was able to consider the merits of the joint sanctions award because the plaintiff had filed a proper notice of appeal, but that is not the case here, as [client] was not subject to the sanctions award.”
Further, because client was not aggrieved by the sanctions order, it lacked a beneficial interest so as to have standing to file a writ petition. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1086.)