Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms a Lower Fee Request Based Upon Lack of Clarity.
This next case, from our local Fourth District, Division 3 appellate court, reinforces a lesson that should be clear from now—if you are a fee claimant, provide the court a roadmap on why you should get the best (and highest) award.
In Santoyo v. Snyder, Case Nos. G041632/G041629 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 16, 2010) (unpublished), attorney appealed because he was not awarded enough attorney’s fees for representing a trustee and guardian of the estate of a couple’s three minor children. Attorney wanted more than $135,000 for his services, but only received a total of about $40,000 for the two matters if we are correctly reading the opinion.
Our local appellate court, in a 3-0 decision penned by Justice Aronson, affirmed the reduced fee award.
The reasons? Boiled down, failure to provide a roadmap. On appeal, attorney failed to provide “pinpoint” (specific) appellate record citations, a requirement that more and more appellate panels are enforcing to even entertain a challenge on appeal. The Court of Appeal was offended by block billing entries, especially enraged by one for $20,000 without specification. Attorney also tried to surcharge for time that was arguably not even spent for the benefit of his true clients. Summed up, this appeal was a mess—and a mess produces the end result, an affirmance of the trial court’s discretion in reducing the fee award. Don’t get trapped—provide a roadmap!