# Cal Attorneys Fees


## Posts

- [Interest, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A False Claims Act Case, Postjudgment Interest Ran From The Date Of A Fees Award, Not An Earlier Order Confirming A Settlement](https://calattorneysfees.com/interest-special-fee-shifting-statutes-in-a-false-claims-act-case-postjudgment-interest-ran-from-the-date-of-a-fees-award-not-an-earlier-order-confirming-a-settlement/): Earlier Order Did Not Qualify As A Money Judgment. Agreeing and disagreeing with some other circuits, the Ninth Circuit in Thrower v. Academy Mortgage Corp., No. 24-6247 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2026) (published) held that postjudgment interest on a False Claims Act attorney’s fees award under 28 U.S.C. section 1961(a) runs from the order awarding fees rather than an earlier order confirming a settlement where the earlier order did not designate the amount of fees.
- [Multipliers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Ninth Circuit Reverses and Remands A Multiplier Award In A False Claims Case, Disagreeing On The Merits Of The Award, But Agreeing That The Reason For The Enhancement Was Not Specific Enough.](https://calattorneysfees.com/multipliers-special-fee-shifting-statutes-ninth-circuit-reverses-and-remands-a-multiplier-award-in-a-false-claims-case-disagreeing-on-the-merits-of-the-award-but-agreeing-that-the-reason-for-the-e/): Dissenting Circuit Judge M. Smith concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in determining this case to be “rare and exceptional” and thereby justifying such an enhancement.  In must reading for attorneys seeking positive enhancements for a federal case in the Ninth Circuit, Thrower v. Academy Mortgage Corp., Case No. 34-4103 (9th Cir. April 6, 2026) (published), a 2-1 opinion where there was disagreement on whether the case was rare and exceptional for multiplier purposes, although all circuit judges agreed the district judge did provide specificity in awarding a 1.75 multiplier to plaintiff’s counsel reaching a large settlement […]
- [In The News . . . . OpEd Article In April 6, 2026 Issue Of The Orange County Register Shows That PAGA Lawsuits And Settlements Have Soared](https://calattorneysfees.com/in-the-news-oped-article-in-april-6-2026-issue-of-the-orange-county-register-shows-that-paga-lawsuits-and-settlements-have-soared/): Attorney Payouts Highlighted In The Article. Tom Manzo, founder of the California Business and Industrial Alliance, wrote an OpEd piece, “Will state get serious about labor code lawsuit reform?,” in the April 6, 2026 issue of The Orange County Register.  In it, he mentions that in 2024, the year lawmakers were supposed to enact a major overhaul, 1,806 Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuits generated more than $1.6 billion in total settlements, with attorneys collecting more than $508 million of that amount.  Then, in 2025, the settlements rose to 2,420 cases, with the total payouts exceeding $2.2 billion and attorneys […]
- [Lodestar, Retainer Agreements: After Lower Court Determined That Retainer Agreement Was Unconscionable And Determined Client Owed Nothing Under A Quantum Meruit Recovery, The Appellate Court Reduced The Contractual Fee Award To Client For Dilatory Conduct](https://calattorneysfees.com/lodestar-retainer-agreements-after-lower-court-determined-that-retainer-agreement-was-unconscionable-and-determined-client-owed-nothing-under-a-quantum-meruit-recovery-the-appellate-court-reduced-t/): This Case Shows How, Even On Appeal, Justices Will Try To Balance Equity On Fee Awards. In Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae v. Yakobi, Case No. B338762 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 3, 2026) (unpublished), a client won a fee dispute against her former attorneys, with the lower court finding certain provisions in the engagement letter were unconscionable (because they gave more priority to the trust estate rather than the individual client involved) such that a quantum meruit recovery applied and with client owing nothing more to former attorneys.  The lower court awarded contractual fees to the […]
- [Family Law: Under A Marital Settlement Agreement’s Prevailing Party Fee Clause, The Family Law Judge Can Consider Financial Needs Of The Litigants, Namely, Family Code Section 2030 And 2032 Factors](https://calattorneysfees.com/family-law-under-a-marital-settlement-agreements-prevailing-party-fee-clause-the-family-law-judge-can-consider-financial-needs-of-the-litigants-namely-family-code-section-2030-and-2032-fa/): Civil Code Section 1717 Lodestar Factors Alone Do Not Restrict The Family Court In Deciding Prevailing Party Contractual Fees. Marriage of Bowman, Case No. B331924 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 3, 2026) (published) held that a family law judge can consider financial needs and ability to pay (Family Code section 2030 and 2032 factors) in awarding fees under a contractual fees clause in a marital settlement agreement (MSA).  Both the trial and appellate courts rejected the notion that only Civil Code section 1717 lodestar principles applied, because the matter at hand was a family law case—where equitable principles applied. 
- [Equity: Two Of Our Readers Obtained An Award Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs For Their Client (A Defendant/Cross-Complainant) As A Condition Of A Superior Court’s Order Equitably Vacating A Default Against A Cross-Defendant](https://calattorneysfees.com/equity-two-of-our-readers-obtained-an-award-of-attorneys-fees-and-costs-for-their-client-a-defendant-cross-complainant-as-a-condition-of-a-superior-courts-order-equitably-vacating/): This Is One Of The Larger Fee/Costs Award We Have Seen In This Area, But The Fees And Costs Encompassed Several Other Pre-Trial Proceedings On The Subject. Two readers of our blog, Ronald C. Foreman and Ian A. Hansen of Foreman & Brasso in San Francisco, are to be congratulated as well as “hat tipped” for bringing our attention to a March 27, 2026 order by Judge Roberta S. Hayashi in PAHC Apartments Inc. v. Layers LLC, Case No. 23-CV-412080 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct.).  There, Judge Hayashi, on equitable (not CCP § 773) grounds, vacated a default in favor […]
- [Costs: Prevailing Party’s Cost Memorandum Was Timely Filed After Entry Of Judgment On A Retrial Following An Earlier Granting Of A New Trial Motion](https://calattorneysfees.com/costs-prevailing-partys-cost-memorandum-was-timely-filed-after-entry-of-judgment-on-a-retrial-following-an-earlier-granting-of-a-new-trial-motion/): Also, Appellant’s Apportionment Argument Based On Relative Successes Had No Factual Analysis, So It Was Rejected. In Mileck v. Mileck, Case No. A170748 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), appellant/non-prevailing party filed a motion to tax costs against the prevailing party, with the lower court only taxing $520 out a requested $29,238.98 in costs.  On appeal, appellant argued that the costs memorandum was untimely filed, but that challenge failed because the prevailing party did file timely when the judgment on retrial was entered (given that the new trial grant did reset the deadlines, keyed to the judgment after […]
- [Tort Of Another: Although It Is Not An Independent Cause Of Action, The Doctrine Could Be Pursued As A Component Of Damages In Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Against Her Broker Relating To A Residential House Purchase](https://calattorneysfees.com/tort-of-another-although-it-is-not-an-independent-cause-of-action-the-doctrine-could-be-pursued-as-a-component-of-damages-in-plaintiffs-tort-claims-against-her-broker-relating-to-a-resident/): Plaintiff’s Prior Loss In An Arbitration Against Seller And Seller’s Broker Did Not Prevent Application Of The Doctrine. Plaintiff buyer of a residential house was not pleased after discovering that the property reeked of cigarette smoke.  She first sued seller and seller’s broker primarily for nondisclosure, and she lost an arbitration against them (naturally incurring attorney’s fees in the process).  Plaintiff then sued her broker, but the lower court sustained a demurrer without leave based on the arbitration result having collateral estoppel impact and because tort of another is not an independent cause of action. The 2/3 DCA reversed in […]
- [POOF!, Section 1717: Because Plaintiff’s Declaratory Relief Action Was Moot, The Ensuing $165,000 Fee Award Under Section 1717 Went POOF! As A Matter Of Law](https://calattorneysfees.com/poof-section-1717-because-plaintiffs-declaratory-relief-action-was-moot-the-ensuing-165000-fee-award-under-section-1717-went-poof-as-a-matter-of-law/): Lower Court Should Have Dismissed The Case, Not Enter Judgment In Plaintiff’s Favor. In Currency Corp. v. The Pullman Group LLC, Case Nos. B340592 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), a long-running battle involving enforceability of a contract assigning royalties to defendants, the lower court entered a declaratory relief judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants.  The appellate court agreed with the defense that the controversy was moot based on a prior appellate opinion, with the defense not disagreeing that the contract was enforceable.  This meant that the case should have been dismissed (as was […]
- [Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $6,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Respondent In CHRO Proceeding Was No Abuse Of Discretion Under CCP § 527.6](https://calattorneysfees.com/special-fee-shifting-statutes-6000-fee-award-to-prevailing-respondent-in-chro-proceeding-was-no-abuse-of-discretion-under-ccp-%c2%a7-527-6/): Respondent’s Counsel Discounted His Fees; And, While Inability to Pay Is Not A 527.6 Factor, The Lower Court Did Take It Into Account By Allowing The Fee Award Payments To Be Made Over 30 Months. In Naeini v. Leuchter, Case No. B341481 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 26, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner lost a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) proceeding against a neighbor, who moved to recover $6,000 in attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 (with his attorney discounting his work effort downward from $8,450).  The lower court granted the request, ordering that losing petitioner pay the award over 30 months […]
- [Tort Of Another: First District Confirms That This Doctrine Does Not Extend To Fees Expended In Suing A Direct Tortfeasor Where The Defendant Had An Adverse Fee Award In The Underlying Action](https://calattorneysfees.com/tort-of-another-first-district-confirms-that-this-doctrine-does-not-extend-to-fees-expended-in-suing-a-direct-tortfeasor-where-the-defendant-had-an-adverse-fee-award-in-the-underlying-action/): A Third Party Had To Be Involved, Not The Case. Guinnane Construction Co. v. Chess, Case No. A172999 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 26, 2026) (published) confirmed that the tort of another doctrine does not apply against a tortfeasor beyond fees incurred in prosecuting or defending the action with the third party, but it does not extend to those incurred in an action against the tortfeasor for fees.  The case has a nice discussion of the jurisprudence in this area. 
- [Homeowner Associations, POOF!: In A Case Involving Two Homeowners, 4/1 DCA’s Majority Opinion Struck An Attorney’s Fees Award Completely Because It Was Premature And Plaintiff Was Not The Prevailing Party](https://calattorneysfees.com/homeowner-associations-poof-in-a-case-involving-two-homeowners-4-1-dcas-majority-opinion-struck-an-attorneys-fees-award-completely-because-it-was-premature-and-plaintiff-was-not/): Dissent Disagreed, Wanting To Remand The Matter For Determining A Reasonable Fee Award–$138,875 In Fees Went POOF! Based On The Majority Opinion. In an interesting 2-1 decision, the 4/1 DCA in Senseman v. Mimi Real Properties, Case No. D084658 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 26, 2026) (unpublished) affirmed a merits determination but struck a $138,875 fee award to plaintiff as a matter of law.  The dissent (Justice O’Rourke) saw things differently. This dispute involved two condo owners, with one living above the other.  Plaintiff sued on the basis that defendant should not be allowed to use the unit as a […]
- [Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Where Defendant Minimally Prevailed On A Declaratory Relief Claim But County Avoided $6 Million Exposure On A Negligent Misrepresentation Count, County Was Entitled To Over $800,000 In Attorney’s Fees And A Little Under $24,000 In Costs Under A Contractual Fee Clause](https://calattorneysfees.com/fee-clause-interpretation-prevailing-party-where-defendant-minimally-prevailed-on-a-declaratory-relief-claim-but-county-avoided-6-million-exposure-on-a-negligent-misrepresentation-count-county-was/): Under A Broad Contractual Fees Clause, The Lower Court Can Determine The Prevailing Party—Much To The Chagrin Of A Losing Party. We have posted for years as bloggers.  We are not judges, nor pretend to be.  But we can say certain themes prevail in many cases we have posted on: (1) broad contractual fee clauses may result in exposure for the non-prevailing party; and (2) in a “no home run case,” a trial court has a great leeway in determining who prevails based on the pragmatical result in a litigation case comparing the relief obtained and risks avoided in a […]
- [Costs: Where Party Moving To Tax Appellate Costs Demonstrated That Party Paid Some Expenses, The Burden Shifted To The Costs-Claiming Party To Provide Receipts](https://calattorneysfees.com/costs-where-party-moving-to-tax-appellate-costs-demonstrated-that-party-paid-some-expenses-the-burden-shifted-to-the-costs-claiming-party-to-provide-receipts/): The Motion To Tax Costs Did Shift The Burden Back To The Costs Claimant—Not Met. In Deen v. Kreditor, Case No. G064426 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2026) (unpublished), a prevailing party on a prior appeal filed a costs memorandum for appellate costs totaling $1,184.65.  The losing side filed a motion to tax appellate costs, which was denied even though the loser did put forth evidence that loser paid certain of the claimed costs—so they were not incurred.  The 4/3 DCA, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Delaney, reversed as a matter of law.  Given that opposing party […]
- [Retainer Agreements: Plaintiff Disputing Allocation To Her As Client And To Her Attorneys Lost The Fight Because The Retainer Agreement Had A Provision Stating That No Contingency Arrangements Applied To Settlements Where Individual Recovery And Fee Recovery To Counsel Were Separately Negotiated](https://calattorneysfees.com/retainer-agreements-plaintiff-disputing-allocation-to-her-as-client-and-to-her-attorneys-lost-the-fight-because-the-retainer-agreement-had-a-provision-stating-that-no-contingency-arrangements-applied/): Plaintiff Herself Was A Sophisticated Litigant, With The Lower And Appellate Courts Finding The Retainer Agreement Was Unambiguous In The Proper Allocation. Brinkman v. Jane Doe, Case No. A173377 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 24, 2026) (unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff disputed what portion of a settlement negotiated with two different bank defendants was due to her versus what was due to her attorneys.  She lost when the lower court found in Attorneys’ favor. The case involved a plaintiff, who was an experienced paralegal, who served as a lay arbitrator with the San Francisco Fee Dispute Arbitration Program, and […]
- [Arbitration, Section 1717: Where Arbitration Respondent Won A Dismissal Of An Arbitration Award Based On Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Respondent Was Not Entitled To Fees But Was Entitled To Routine Costs](https://calattorneysfees.com/arbitration-section-1717-where-arbitration-respondent-won-a-dismissal-of-an-arbitration-award-based-on-lack-of-personal-jurisdiction-respondent-was-not-entitled-to-fees-but-was-entitled-to-rou/): Fee Issues Depended On Further Actions.                In O’Leary v. Jones III, Case No. D085327 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 24, 2026) (published), the Court of Appeal confirmed a denial of attorney’s fees to an arbitration respondent, who was never joined in a court action before the matter was ordered to arbitration such that the respondent, as superior court found, was not subject to arbitration jurisdiction when the superior court dismissed respondent at an arbitration confirmation request.  However, because the respondent did win an arbitration dismissal, respondent should have been awarded routine costs for the dismissal.  The upshot is that […]
- [Costs, Requests For Admission, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A Complex Water Diversion/Trespass Case, 2/7 DCA Affirms Costs Award To Defendant City, Affirms Denial Of Supplemental Fees And Costs To City Under CCP §§ 1038 & 2033.420, And Reverses Costs Award To Defendant Water Committee Based On Reversing A Judgment In Its Favor](https://calattorneysfees.com/costs-requests-for-admission-special-fee-shifting-statutes-in-a-complex-water-diversion-trespass-case-2-7-dca-affirms-costs-award-to-defendant-city-affirms-denial-of-supplemental-fees-and-costs-t/): Acting Presiding Justice Segal Penned The 3-0 Opinion On Various Merits, Costs, And Fee Issues In A 74-Page Opinion. In Beecham v. City of Azusa, Case No. B33843 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), deceased trustee, through a substituted personal presentative, sued two City entities (City), an irrigation company, and a water committee for alleged contractual, financial elder abuse, and various tort claims based on diverting water from and trespassing on her property.  After a prior appeal, City prevailed completely on plaintiff’s claims, and was subsequently awarded costs of $94,473.54, but denied supplemental costs and fees under CCP […]
- [Probate, Sanctions: CCP § 128.7(b)(1) Sanctions Affirmed Against A Probate Litigant Filing A New Contesting Petition For An Improper Purpose](https://calattorneysfees.com/probate-sanctions-ccp-%c2%a7-128-7b1-sanctions-affirmed-against-a-probate-litigant-filing-a-new-contesting-petition-for-an-improper-purpose/): CCP § 128.7(b)(2) Represented Litigant Exception Did Not Apply To (b)(1) Sanctions, Resulting In An Upholding Of A $25,013 Sanctions Award Against Losing Trustee. In Gerald C. Fox Foundation v. Fox, Case No. H053043 (6th Dist. Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), CCP § 128.7(b)(1) sanctions were imposed against a trustee who filed a new trust petition after losing a trust petition brought by respondent beneficiaries while that loss was pending on appeal.  (The appellate court affirmed the favorable decision for respondent beneficiaries.)  The sanctions award was $25,013 under (b)(1).  Losing trustee principally argued that he could not be sanctioned because he […]
- [Requests for Admission, Sanctions: 1/3 DCA Remands Trial Court’s Denial Of RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions As An Abuse Of Discretion](https://calattorneysfees.com/discovery-sanctions-1-3-dca-remands-trial-courts-denial-of-rfa-costs-of-proof-sanctions-as-an-abuse-of-discretion/): Estate of Alders, Case No. A171324 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished) examines the diligence required from both litigants and superior courts to secure costs-of-proof sanctions for unreasonable denial of RFAs under CCP § 2033.420(a). There, a will contest proponent lost, via a summary judgment and trial, all of his claims, with the successful party seeking almost $1.5 million in costs-of-proof sanctions for losing party’s denial of 13 requests for admissions which were served at an early phase of the contest, even though they were targeted at important issues (although some were asking for legal conclusions, which is […]
- [Arbitration, Celebrities: In A 2-1 Split Opinion, The 2/7 DCA Holds That A Law Firm Prevailing In A MFAA Arbitration Was Not The Prevailing Party For Purposes Of Fees/Costs In That Proceeding Because It Waived The Argument In Front Of A CAA Arbitrator And The Superior Court Could Discretionarily Deny Fees Based On The Arbitrator Determining There Was No Prevailing Party In Arbitration Award Confirmation Proceedings](https://calattorneysfees.com/arbitration-celebrities-in-a-2-1-split-opinion-the-2-7-dca-holds-that-a-law-firm-prevailing-in-a-mfaa-arbitration-was-not-the-prevailing-party-for-purposes-of-fees-costs-in-that-proceeding-bec/): Dissenting Justice Saw Things Differently: Superior Court Had To Independently Determine MFAA Award Issue Or Remand To The Arbitrator To Decide. Allan Law Group, P.C. v. Stewart, Case No. B333681 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) involves an interesting intersection between Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) and California Arbitration Act (CAA) principles where the parties agreed to do each, with the ultimate result drawing very different reactions in a 2-1 opinion between the majority and dissenting Justice Segal. Law firm represented Sylvester Stewart, lead singer of Sly and the Family Stone, and an affiliated S corporation in various […]
- [Allocation, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Could Make Allocation Of Fees Between Contract/Tort Claims, But It Erred In Not Allowing Opposing Party To Review/Contest A Supplemental Declaration From The Fee Claimant To Support The Final Fee Award](https://calattorneysfees.com/allocation-substantiation-of-reasonableness-of-fees-lower-court-could-make-allocation-of-fees-between-contract-tort-claims-but-it-erred-in-not-allowing-opposing-party-to-review-contest-a-supplement/): The Matter Is Remanded To Look At A Restudy Of The Supplemental Declaration. Due process is alive and well in the attorney’s fees area, as Tres Caminos, LP v. MGP XI US Properties LLC, Case No. D085539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) demonstrates.  It also shows the broad discretion given to a lower court to apportion fees or not when adjudicating fee motions. In this one, Plaintiff sued Defendant at different litigation stages on both contract/noncontract claims relating to whether other tenants’ lease provisions impacted Plaintiff, with some of the claims dismissed at the demurrer stage and […]
- [Private Attorney General: $165,072.50 Attorney’s Fees Award On CEQA Win To Prevailing Litigant Is Affirmed On Appeal](https://calattorneysfees.com/private-attorney-general-165072-50-attorneys-fees-award-on-ceqa-win-to-prevailing-litigant-is-affirmed-on-appeal/): Housing Accountability Act Standards Can Be Factored Into The Equation, With Trade Union Affiliations Not Showing It Made A Difference On The Financial Cost/Benefit Factor. In Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility v. City of Inglewood, Case No. B345195 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 19, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner won a CEQA challenge based on Housing Accountability Act issues.  The lower court awarded $165,072.50 in CCP § 1021.5 private attorney fees to the successful party.  That award was affirmed on appeal.  The Housing Act issues could be considered for purposes of determining whether petitioner prevailed and benefited a significant class of persons.  […]
- [Sanctions: First District Court Of Appeal Publishes Opinion Informing In Pro Per Litigants That They Cannot Use And Are Subject For Sanctions When Relying On AI Hallucinations](https://calattorneysfees.com/sanctions-first-district-court-of-appeal-publishes-opinion-informing-in-pro-per-litigants-that-they-cannot-use-and-are-subject-for-sanctions-when-relying-on-ai-hallucinations/): This Case Builds On Cases Applicable To Attorneys, But Extends The Prohibition To In Pro Per Litigants. In Sheerer v. Panas, Case No. A171804 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 19, 2026) (partially published; AI discussion published), the appellate court made clear that the recent California case authority which prohibits AI hallucinations equally applies to in pro per litigants.  No sanctions were issued, but here is what the appellate court had to say as a warning to represented and in pro per litigants: “Thus, our warning to litigants is not merely an admonition to double-check citations and otherwise fastidiously comply with […]
- [Costs, Deadlines, POOF!: Although Plaintiff Won On The Merits, Substantial Fee Recovery and Routine Costs Recovery Were Reversed As A Matter Of Law](https://calattorneysfees.com/costs-deadlines-poof-although-plaintiff-won-on-the-merits-substantial-fee-recovery-and-routine-costs-recovery-were-reversed-as-a-matter-of-law/): Fees Were Not Allowable Without A Fees Motion; Costs Were Not Allowable Because Failure To Use Judicial Council Worksheet Gave No Basis For A Conclusion On Whether The Costs Were Reasonable, In Response To Defendant’s Motion To Tax Costs. Pelloni v. Mirshahi, Case Nos. B336950 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 17, 2026) (unpublished) has two object lessons for a plaintiff prevailing on the merits:  (1) if you are claiming attorney’s fees, you must file a fee motion and not just include a request in a costs memorandum; and (2) if you are claiming routine costs, you need to […]
- [Costs, Deadlines, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CHRO Prevailing Party On Modification Request And Appeal Work On Certain Orders Was Entitled To The Lower Court’s Fee Recovery](https://calattorneysfees.com/costs-deadlines-special-fee-shifting-statutes-chro-prevailing-party-on-modification-request-and-appeal-work-on-certain-orders-was-entitled-to-the-lower-courts-fee-recovery/): However, Because A Harassment Renewal Order Was Reversed, Fees For Those Efforts Were Not Allowable As Well As Routine Cost Recovery Because No Memorandum Of Costs Was Filed. In litigation which has gone on for a while and generated several appeals, the dust may have finally settled with the appellate court opinion in George v. Hartman, Case Nos. H052049 et al. (6th Dist. Mar. 17, 2026) (unpublished).  Basically, Mr. George prevailed on civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) requests, including modification and renewal efforts, as well as prevailing on appeal in most instances except on the renewal request.  The lower court […]
- [Appealability, SLAPP: Order Denying or Granting A SLAPP Fees Motion Is Not Appealable](https://calattorneysfees.com/appealability-slapp-order-denying-or-granting-a-slapp-fees-motion-is-not-appealable/): 2/7 DCA Decides To Follow Its Prior Opinion in Doe v. Luster. In Clapkin v. Levin, Case No. B340606 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 16, 2026) (published), Acting Justice Segal on behalf of a 3-0 2/7 DCA panel dismissed an appeal brough by cross-complainants from a request for an award of SLAPP fees after cross-defendants’ SLAPP merits motion was denied (with the merits determination affirmed on appeal).  The panel found that no statutory language made the order granting or denying SLAPP fees appealable in line with the Division’s prior reasoning in Doe v. Luster, 145 Cal.App.4th 139, 147 (2006).  The […]
- [Liens For Attorney Fees: Third District Holds That A Single Declaratory Relief Action Against Both The Clients And Competing Attorney Lien Claimant Is A Permissible Way To Enforce Attorney Lien Claims On Settlement Or Judgment Proceeds](https://calattorneysfees.com/liens-for-attorney-fees-third-district-holds-that-a-single-declaratory-relief-action-against-both-the-clients-and-competing-attorney-lien-claimant-is-a-permissible-way-to-enforce-attorney-lien-claims/): Second Attorney Obtaining A Recovery Does Not Have To Wait For Clients’ Former Attorney To Bring A Separate Individual Action Against The Clients. In Jacobs v. Papez, Case No. C100761 (3d Dist. Mar. 13, 2026) (published), which involved dueling claims by two attorneys to enforce lien rights against clients’ settlement, the Third District held “that bringing a single action for declaratory relief against both the clients and a competing attorney lien claimant is a permissible way for an attorney to enforce an attorney lien claim on the proceeds of a settlement or judgment.  Contrary to the trial court’s view, the […]
- [Family Law: Marriage of Hoch Opinion Now Published](https://calattorneysfees.com/family-law-marriage-of-hoch-opinion-now-published/): Case Held That Not Stipulating To Legal Separation On Religious Grounds And Not Particularizing Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Request Led To A Reversal. On February 20, 2026, we posted on Marriage of Hoch, Case No. G063467 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), which held that Family Code section 271 sanctions were not appropriate for the reasons described in our subtitle to this post.  We can now report that the case was certified for publication on March 12, 2026. 
- [Common Fund, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Winning Derivative Claim On Behalf Of A Limited Partnership Was Properly Awarded Fees Under Corporations Code Section 15910.05(b) Out Of The Damage Recovery Obtained By The LP Against Defendant](https://calattorneysfees.com/common-fund-special-fee-shifting-statutes-plaintiff-winning-derivative-claim-on-behalf-of-a-limited-partnership-was-properly-awarded-fees-under-corporations-code-section-15910-05b-out-of-the-damag/): Section 15910.05(b) Is Not Displaced By Common Fund/Substantial Benefit Theories, Although Those Theories Also Supported The Fee Award. In Duboff v. Schermer, Case Nos. B343324 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 12, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff won a substantial damages recovery of almost $6 million against defendant in a limited partnership derivative action (where plaintiff was not the only interested party) for mismanaging and self-dealing in connection with an LP building, then moving for fees and costs under Corporations Code section 15910.05(b).  This provision does authorize a discretionary award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a party whose derivative action was […]
- [Lis Pendens, Prevailing Party, Probate: Respondents In Probate Dispute Venued In Marin County Won Attorney’s Fees In Successfully Expunging A Lis Pendens And Then Won More Substantial Fees As The Prevailing Parties After Petitioner Voluntarily Dismissed A 850 Petition](https://calattorneysfees.com/lis-pendens-prevailing-party-probate-respondents-in-probate-dispute-venued-in-marin-county-won-attorneys-fees-in-successfully-expunging-a-lis-pendens-and-then-won-more-substantial-fees-as/): Various Statutes Gave Rise To Fee Entitlement In The Probate Case. One of our readers, Ronald Foreman of San Francisco’s Foreman & Brasso, sent us some interesting fee opinions in the Marin County Superior Court case of Matter of the Gregory Joseph Schoepp Living Trust, Case No. PR000248 [12/6/24 lis pendens expungement fee order and 3/9/26 prevailing party fees/costs order]. Petitioner in a probate case recorded a lis pendens and brought an 850 petition based on undue influence, wrongful taking, and non-contract claims.  Mr. Foreman and Ian Hansen of the Foreman firm defended on behalf of two respondents.  First, respondent […]
- [Costs, Section 998: Where A Losing Cross-Defendant Was Never Served With A Section 998 Offer, Trial Court Erred In Awarding Expert Witness Expenses Against Her](https://calattorneysfees.com/costs-section-998-where-a-losing-cross-defendant-was-never-served-with-a-section-998-offer-trial-court-erred-in-awarding-expert-witness-expenses-against-her/): Costs Recovery Was Void Under CCP § 473(d), With A Remand Ordered To See If Other Costs Were Allowable. Warren v. Shahar, Case No. B339274 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 11, 2026) (unpublished) illustrates how a costs memorandum likely needs to be filed separately when there are separate parties involved and CCP § 998 offers are only made to certain parties. Defendants/cross-complainants defensed plaintiff’s complaint, but they won on a cross-complaint against a new cross-defendant Ms. Shahar to the tune of $600,000, which she eventually paid.  Defendants had made a 998 offer to the plaintiff, although one was never sent […]
- [Lodestar, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Deed Restriction Document Gave Rise to Contractual Attorney’s Fees](https://calattorneysfees.com/lodestar-substantiation-of-reasonableness-of-fees-deed-restriction-document-gave-rise-to-contractual-attorneys-fees/): $144,210 Was The Fees Award, With Attorney Declaration Of Efforts Sufficient And Rejecting The Notion That City’s Lead Counsel’s Salary Guided The Lodestar Analysis. In City of Santa Monica v. Sung, Case No. B336881 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 10, 2026) (unpublished), defendant condo owner lost a declaratory relief action brought by City to prevent a low-income tenant from renting based on a recorded Deed Restriction, which contained a contractual fees clause in favor of the prevailing party.  The lower court awarded contractual fees of $144,210 to City.  Owner’s appeal of the fee award was unsuccessful.  Owner argued […]
- [Probate: Counsel Appointed To Represent A Conservatee Pursuant To Probate Code Section 1471 Was Entitled To Conservatorship-Related Compensation ….](https://calattorneysfees.com/probate-counsel-appointed-to-represent-a-conservatee-pursuant-to-probate-code-section-1471-was-entitled-to-conservatorship-related-compensation/): However, Compensation For A Civil Proceeding Separate From The Conservatorship Could Not Be Compensated Under 1471; Rather Probate Code Section 2430 Requisites Had To Be Followed If Quasi-Contractual Recovery Was Being Sought For That Work. The Probate Code has many provisions allowing for compensation to attorneys in different contexts; however, the strictures under some of those provisions need to be followed and other provisions need to be followed where the strictures in some provisions limit recovery.  Conservatorship of Krueger, Case No. E084601 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 10, 2026) (unpublished) is a nicely reasoned unpublished opinion showing that to be […]
- [Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Civil Harassment Fee-Shifting Statute Does Not Require A Determination Of Either Party’s Ability To Pay Before Awarding Fees](https://calattorneysfees.com/special-fee-shifting-statutes-civil-harassment-fee-shifting-statute-does-not-require-a-determination-of-either-partys-ability-to-pay-before-awarding-fees/): Compared To Other Statutes, Nothing In CCP § 527.6 Requires A Needs Assessment. In States v. MacKrell, Case No. G065683 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 9, 2026) (unpublished), after a lower court awarded $8,397.43 in attorney’s fees and costs for a request to extend a civil harassment restraining order against a litigant, the appellate court affirmed the award.  It also determined that CCP § 527.6, the civil harassment statute which does allow fees to the prevailing party, does not require the court to determine either party’s ability to pay before making an award. 
- [Lodestar: Do Awards to Government Attorneys Have To Match Their Salaries …](https://calattorneysfees.com/lodestar-do-awards-to-government-attorneys-have-to-match-their-salaries/): Naught, Said Appellate Court In Unpublished Opinion Based On No Supporting Authority. We do not know if this means much, but maybe for governmental attorneys seeking fees in certain types of state cases.  City & County of San Francisco v. Jamali, Case Nos. A171957 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 6, 2026) (unpublished) rejected the notion that attorney’s fees awarded to the government must match their salaries.  No authority supporting this contention was provided, so that argument was summarily dismissed, although it distinguished other cases which were far amiss on this issue.
- [Appeal Sanctions: $5,000 Was The Appellate Sanctions For AI Hallucination Transgressions](https://calattorneysfees.com/appeal-sanctions-5000-was-the-appellate-sanctions-for-ai-hallucination-transgressions/): Another Published Opinion In This Area—Be A Human, Read, Check, And Verify AI Research. In re the Domestic Partnership of Campos & Munoz, Case No. D085584 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 5, 2026) (published) is post-worthy because it builds on prior cases and imposed $5,000 in appeal sanctions, payable to the appellate clerk, for filing briefs with AI hallucinations—more than in other cases because appellant’s counsel was not forthcoming on her AI hallucinations conduct. BLOG NOTE—Co-contributor Mike Hensley can refer practitioners to a discussion of many of the cases cited in this opinion in his article published in the May-June […]
- [Probate: Trustee Found Liable For Misappropriating Property Was Properly Assessed A Two-Fold Civil Penalty, As Well As Hit With Reasonable Attorney’s Fees And Costs](https://calattorneysfees.com/probate-trustee-found-liable-for-misappropriating-property-was-properly-assessed-a-two-fold-civil-penalty-as-well-as-hit-with-reasonable-attorneys-fees-and-costs/): Probate Code Section 859 Was The Penalty And Fees/Costs Entitlement Statute. In a very sad set of facts, but ones under which beneficiaries prevailed against a misappropriating trustee, the lower court in Moramarco v. Nowakoski, Case No. E084620 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 5, 2026) (unpublished), following a State Bar disbarment/restitution order because trustee was an attorney, also awarded a civil penalty of $399,681.88 and fees/costs of $61,702.54 under Probate Code section 859 against the former trustee.  That section provides that a misappropriating trustee can be liable for a two-fold civil penalty (based on the value of the property taken) […]
- [Arbitration: Even With Qualifying Language Found Insufficient, Fees And Costs Provisions In The Employment Agreement Were Found Substantively Unconscionable](https://calattorneysfees.com/arbitration-even-with-qualifying-language-found-insufficient-fees-and-costs-provisions-in-the-employment-agreement-were-found-substantively-unconscionable/): However, Remand Was Ordered To See If Severance Could Allow Arbitration To Proceed. In Foster v. Liberty Military Housing Holdings, LLC, Case No. D085268 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 4, 2026; posted Mar. 5, 2026) (unpublished), an employment agreement had an arbitration clause with the following fees and costs provisions: “If required by law applicable to the dispute, Company will pay the arbitrator’s fees. If applicable law imposes no such requirement, the arbitrator’s fees will be divided equally between you and Company.  “[¶] Unless contrary to applicable law in a specific matter arising hereunder, upon completion of the arbitration, the […]
- [Private Attorney General: CCP § 1021 Catalyst Fee Recovery Not Available To Plaintiffs Where The Other Side Voluntarily Provided Relief Only After Plaintiffs Had Lost Relief In A Prior Merits Judgment](https://calattorneysfees.com/private-attorney-general-ccp-%c2%a7-1021-catalyst-fee-recovery-not-available-to-plaintiffs-where-the-other-side-voluntarily-provided-relief-only-after-plaintiffs-had-lost-relief-in-a-prior-merits-jud/): Case Found That Plaintiffs Could Not Meet The Successful Parties Element, Even Under A Catalyst Theory. In Physicians for Social Responsibility – L.A. v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Case No. C100487 (3d Dist. Mar. 4, 2026) (published), the appellate court affirmed a denial of private attorney general fees, under a catalyst theory, where the defendant voluntarily provided relief but only after plaintiffs lost a prior merits determination.  “[W]e are unwilling to extend the catalyst theory here wherein the relief sought in the underlying litigation was voluntarily provided only after the merits of the claims had been fully litigated to […]
- [Prevailing Party: Where Plaintiff Through A Settlement Obtained A Rescission And Partial Restitution Of Prejudgment Interest, The Lower Court Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Under A Contractual Fees Clause Because A Mixed Result Occurred](https://calattorneysfees.com/prevailing-party-where-plaintiff-through-a-settlement-obtained-a-rescission-and-partial-restitution-of-prejudgment-interest-the-lower-court-properly-denied-attorneys-fees-under-a-contractua/): $800,000 Fee Request Denied, With The Appellate Court Observing That The Result Could Have Gone The Other Way—But Discretion Is Involved When One Side Does Not Knock It Completely Out Of The Park. Hakim-Baba v. Desai, Case No. H050787 (6th Dist. Mar. 4, 2026) (unpublished) was a messy case where plaintiff primarily sought to rescind an investment in an LLC, but plaintiff also brought tort claims for added damages and defendants brought a “defensive” cross-complaint likely to see if plaintiff would take a reasonable rescission settlement, with there being a broad contractual fee recovery clause in the LLC Agreement.   After […]
- [Arbitration, Homeowner Associations: Given That Homeowner Claims Arose From Governing Documents, An Adverse $254,815.53 Fee/Costs Award Was Affirmed After HOA Prevailed At An Arbitration](https://calattorneysfees.com/arbitration-homeowner-associations-given-that-homeowner-claims-arose-from-governing-documents-an-adverse-254815-53-fee-costs-award-was-affirmed-after-hoa-prevailed-at-an-arbitration/): A Broad By-Law Fees/Cost Clause, The Davis-Stirling Act, And JAMS Cost Provision Amply Justified The Arbitration Award Which Was Confirmed As A Judgment. The next post illustrates a familiar ending story in many homeowner-HOA disputes, whether brough in court or in arbitration:  a prevailing party will face the prospect of obtaining substantial recoupment of attorney’s fees and costs given how contentious these matters often area if claims arose under Governing Documents or the Davis-Stirling Act. That is what happened in Key v. Hidden Hills Community Assn., Case No. B339444 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 27, 2026) (unpublished).  Homeowner initiated a […]
- [Appeal Sanctions, Sanctions: Meritless Appeal Resulted In $13,000 Sanctions Award, Payable To The Appellate Clerk](https://calattorneysfees.com/appeal-sanctions-sanctions-meritless-appeal-resulted-in-13000-sanctions-award-payable-to-the-appellate-clerk/): Appeal Involved Review Of A CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Order Below. In Dunn Investment Properties, Inc. v. Johnson, Case Nos. B339562 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 26, 2026) (unpublished), a lower court sanctioned a party’s law firm and one of its attorneys under CCP § 128.7 to the tune of $11,725 for bringing a meritless ethical misconduct motion against opposing counsel in failing to produce billing records in a dispute (with the appellate court concluding, among other things, that no such duty was owed to produce the records).  The appellate court, on review, found the appeal to be […]
- [Equity, Section 998, Settlement: Trial Court’s Refusal To Vacate A Judgment Based On 998 Offers Allegedly Not Consented To By Plaintiff’s Counsel Was Reversed On Appeal](https://calattorneysfees.com/equity-section-998-settlement-trial-courts-refusal-to-vacate-a-judgment-based-on-998-offers-allegedly-not-consented-to-by-plaintiffs-counsel-was-reversed-on-appeal/): Lower Court Did Not Evaluate Under Inherent Authority Of The Court Standards, So A Revisit Was In Order. In Chen v. Asian Square, Inc., Case No. H052309 (6th Dist. Feb. 25, 2026) (unpublished), within hours of defendant accepting plaintiffs’ CCP § 998 offers, plaintiffs’ counsel notified defendant that plaintiffs had not provided informed consent for the offers.  Judgments were entered in line with the offers.  Plaintiffs brought a motion to vacate the judgments under a court’s inherent authority to vacate dismissals under CCP § 283 and under CCP § 473(b).  The lower court denied the motion to vacate, but it […]
- [Arbitration: Another Post-Hohenshelt Trial Court Decision On Missed Payment And Sanctions Was Reversed And Remanded](https://calattorneysfees.com/arbitration-another-post-hohenshelt-trial-court-decision-on-missed-payment-and-sanctions-was-reversed-and-remanded/): Trial Judge Needed To Assess Culpability And Whether Missed Payment Was Excusable. In Aqua Blue Constr., Inc. v. Goshorn, Case No. B338632 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 24, 2026) (unpublished), an appellate court—post-Hohenshelt—has reversed and remanded a case to see if the party making a missed arbitration payment under CCP § 1281.9 was culpable and whether the payment was excusable, including a reversal of a $36,974.79 sanctions award for now. There were arguments supporting both sides’ positions, especially the paying party who was flummoxed that $164,000 in arbitration expenses was the price for arbitration in a dispute worth a little […]
- [Bankruptcy, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: Non-Debtor And Debtor Were Not Subject To The Automatic Stay Where A Non-Debtor Was Involved And Debtor Was The Only Prosecuting The Case With An Adverse Fee Award](https://calattorneysfees.com/bankruptcy-reasonableness-of-fees-section-1717-non-debtor-and-debtor-were-not-subject-to-the-automatic-stay-where-a-non-debtor-was-involved-and-debtor-was-the-only-prosecuting-the-case-with-an/): Appellate Court Did Remind Counsel They Need To Notify Courts About Bankruptcy Filings Which Might Implicate Whether The Stay Is In Place. Navellier v. Putnam, Case No. A172077 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 2, 2026 unpublished; published on Feb. 23, 2026; posted on Feb. 24, 2026) [bankruptcy discussion published; fee award entitlement and lodestar analysis unpublished] is an interesting opinion which reminds all practitioners that they must notify appellate and trial courts of bankruptcy pleadings to see if the stay is in effect.  The appellate court did not sanction anyone, but it was not happy about not having notice.  However, […]
- [Lodestar: Ninth Circuit Determines That Size Of The Law Firm Alone Should Not Compel A Reduction In An Attorney’s Fees Award](https://calattorneysfees.com/lodestar-ninth-circuit-determines-that-size-of-the-law-firm-alone-should-not-compel-a-reduction-in-an-attorneys-fees-award/): The Winning Attorneys In A 4-Man Firm Had An Impressive Robison-Patmas Act Litigation Record. In L.A. Int’l Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., Case Nos. 24-3776 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2026) (published), a 4-man firm obtained a substantial liability determination and permanent injunction on behalf Wholesales in a Robinson-Patman Act case, with the merit rulings affirmed on appeal.  The firm had an impressive track record in this area.  However, the district judge awarded the firm $3,142,269.45 in fees rather than the requested $7,651,766 primarily based on the notion that 2023 Real Rate Report hourly rates for L.A. litigators […]
- [Section 1717: Settlement Agreement With Fees Clause, Incorporated Into A Subsequent Judgment, Does Allow For Fee Recovery](https://calattorneysfees.com/section-1717-settlement-agreement-with-fees-clause-incorporated-into-a-subsequent-judgment-does-allow-for-fee-recovery/): Fifth District So Holds In A Contentious Matter. The Fifth District, in Wash v. Wash, Case Nos. F084442/F084443 (5th Dist. Feb. 23,, 2026) (unpublished), confirmed that a contractual fees clause in a settlement agreement, when properly incorporated into a subsequent judgment, can give rise to a fee recovery for a prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717.
- [Reasonableness Of Fees: Court Of Appeal Reversed And Remanded A 50% Haircut For Further Explanation Where There Was A Civil Code § 1717 Basis For Fees](https://calattorneysfees.com/reasonableness-of-fees-court-of-appeal-reversed-and-remanded-a-50-haircut-for-further-explanation-where-there-was-a-civil-code-%c2%a7-1717-basis-for-fees/): There Needed To Be More Explanation For The Fee Reduction. Unfortunately, there is no bright-line rule relating to lower court fee “haircuts” at the state court level, although some civil rights decision may suggest there is.  On the federal level, the Moreno from the Ninth Circuitsays that a fee haircut over 10% needs an explanation.  Although unpublished at the California state court level, in Bardis v. Simonian, Case No. H052733 et al. (6th Dist. Feb. 23, 2026) (unpublished), the appellate court could not fathom a lower court’s 50% reduction of fees in a Civil Code section 1717 property case, remanding […]
- [Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Award Of Fees Under Civil Code Section 3496 Against City Of El Monte Was Affirmed On Appeal](https://calattorneysfees.com/special-fee-shifting-statutes-award-of-fees-under-civil-code-section-3496-against-city-of-el-monte-was-affirmed-on-appeal/): Procedural Challenge Did Not Prevail. In City of El Monte v. Lincoln, Case No. B344087 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 23, 2026) (unpublished), City lost a post-judgment fee order against plaintiff based on losing successive demurrers based on Civil Code section 3496.  That section, applying to abatement by a municipality relating to a controlled substance, does allow an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party—it is not unilateral in nature.  City’s main argument was that the prevailing party fees could not exceed the fees incurred by the governmental agency, a proposition rejected because the fee-shifting provisions contained no limitations […]
- [Laffey Matrix, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, SLAPP, Substantiation Of Reasonableness of Fees: $50,305 SLAPP Appellate Fee Award To Prevailing Defendants Is Affirmed On Appeal](https://calattorneysfees.com/laffey-matrix-lodestar-reasonableness-of-fees-slapp-substantiation-of-reasonableness-of-fees-50305-slapp-appellate-fee-award-to-prevailing-defendants-is-affirmed-on-appeal/): Lower Court Reduced The Requested $95,519.88 In Appellate Fees To Almost Half. In Malik v. Carlson & Gevelinger, Case No. C101751 (3d Dist. Feb. 20, 2026) (unpublished), prevailing defendants earlier had been awarded SLAPP trial level fees of $14,960 (out of a requested $37,917.48) against plaintiffs, with the lower court reducing for requested hourly rates (rejecting use of the Laffey Matrix to justify higher rates), excessive/anticipated/or unverified amounts, amounts not connected to the SLAPP motion, and duplicative work effort.  Losing plaintiffs unsuccessfully challenged the merits determination, not even arguing that the trial level fee award was flawed.  The defendants then […]
- [Construction, Nonsignatories, Section 1717: $108,501.40 Fee Award Against Cross-Complainants Who Voluntarily Dismissed Their Cross-Complaint Is Reversed As A Matter Of Law](https://calattorneysfees.com/construction-nonsignatories-section-1717-108501-40-fee-award-against-cross-complainants-who-voluntarily-dismissed-their-cross-complaint-is-reversed-as-a-matter-of-law/): Santisas, Unilateral Fee-Shifting, And Section 1717 Principles Led To The Reversal. Cross-complainants voluntarily dismissed their cross-complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, disgorgement, Business and Professions Code section 7160 fraudulent inducement to enter a contract, and unjust enrichment as against two individual cross-defendants alleged to be the alter ego of a contractor who sued for nonpayment in a Paradise residential renovation project.  The voluntarily dismissed individuals then moved for attorney’s fees, primarily under Civil Code section 1717 based on a contractual fees clause in the construction contract.  They sought $164,616.25 against […]
- [SLAPP: Where SLAPP Defendant Groups Were Granted Reduced Fees, Plaintiff’s Appeal About The Lower Amounts Awarded Did Not Resonate On Appeal](https://calattorneysfees.com/slapp-where-slapp-defendant-groups-were-granted-reduced-fees-plaintiffs-appeal-about-the-lower-amounts-awarded-did-not-resonate-on-appeal/): Lower Court Even Applied Discounted Hourly Rates Stipulated To By Defense Counsel–No Abuse of Discretion Demonstrated. In Qassimyar v. Ortega, Case No. D084317 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 19, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion brought by two sets of defendants.  The merits determination was affirmed on appeal, but plaintiff also contested mandatory fee awards to the defendants.  One group requested fees of $24,396 and costs of $4,565, but the lower court awarded $11,800 in fees and $4,540 in costs.  The other group requested fees of $23,590 and costs of $1,450, but the lower court awarded $13,210 in fees […]
- [Allocation, Probate, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where There Were Dueling Probate Petitions For Financial Elder Abuse Claims, The Prevailing Petitioner—Even Though A Cross-Respondent Defensing The Unsuccessful Elder Abuse Petition—Was Entitled To Intertwined Fee Work For Prevailing As A Petitioner And Defending As A Cross-Respondent](https://calattorneysfees.com/allocation-probate-special-fee-shifting-statutes-where-there-were-dueling-probate-petitions-for-financial-elder-abuse-claims-the-prevailing-petitioner-even-though-a-cross-respondent-defens/): Other Cases In Unilateral Fee-Shifting Contexts Were Distinguishable. In Haun v. Pagano, Case No. D084385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 18, 2026) (published), the nature of the probate proceedings looks like it drove the result in the case as far as awarding fees under the financial elder abuse statute, which only allows unilateral fee-shifting in favor of a prevailing plaintiff/petitioner.  What happened here was that there were dueling probate petitions for undue influence/financial elder abuse dealing with trusts generated by each side to rectify what they thought the decedent desired or was right.  At the end of the day, the […]
- [Family Law, Sanctions: Family Law Section 271 Sanctions Of $35,000 Reversed Against Ex-Husband Because . . . .](https://calattorneysfees.com/family-law-sanctions-family-law-section-271-sanctions-of-35000-reversed-against-ex-husband-because/): His Failure To Stipulate Did Not Show Bad Faith Under The Circumstances And The Awarded Sanctions Were Not Tethered To Any Specific Conduct. Family Code section 271 does allow for monetary “sanctions” against a family law litigant who tries to not foster resolution and makes the proceedings more expensive.  However, they are not a general “penal” punishment for every type of decision made by a litigant. That is typified by Marriage of Hoch, Case No. G063467 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026; posted Feb. 18, 2026) (unpublished).  There, a $35,000 Family Code section 271 sanctions award against ex-husband was […]
- [Costs, Section 998: Because Defense 998 Offer Was Valid And It Defensed The Plaintiff, Routine Costs Were Allowable But Had To Be Further Reduced](https://calattorneysfees.com/costs-section-998-because-defense-998-offer-was-valid-and-it-defensed-the-plaintiff-routine-costs-were-allowable-but-had-to-be-further-reduced/): After The Lower Court Erred In Not Taxing Some Routine Costs, Especially Some Conceded By The Defense As Being Erroneous, The Costs Judgment Had To Be Modified On Appeal. Reyes-Gonzalez v. Color Marble, Inc., Case No. B350612 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished) involved a case where plaintiff was “defensed” by the defendant, after rejecting a CCP § 998 offer proposing to have the case dismissed in return for a waiver of fees and costs by the defense.  The lower court found the 998 offer valid, and it awarded $229,559.35 in routine costs based on the 998 cost-shifting […]
- [Deadlines, Family Law: Appellate Fees Properly Denied As Untimely And Marital Settlement Agreement Fees Denied To Ex-Wife, But Needs-Based Fees Had To Be Revisited](https://calattorneysfees.com/deadlines-family-law-appellate-fees-properly-denied-as-untimely-and-marital-settlement-agreement-fees-denied-to-ex-wife-but-needs-based-fees-had-to-be-revisited/): Lack Of Family Code Section 2030 Findings Constituted An Abuse Of Discretion. In Marriage of Tran and Ha, Case No. G064047 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife’s requests for two sets of fees (which were denied) did not result in a relook on appeal, but her request for non-appellate, needs-based fees had to be reversed and remanded based on a failure to make Family Code section 2030 required findings. Her appellate fees were properly denied because she failed to timely request them within 40 days after the remittitur issuance.  (CRC 3.1702(c)(1).)  The appellate court determined this deadline […]
- [Deadlines: Motion For Attorney’s Fees Was Untimely Because It Was Served More Than 180 Days After A Dismissal](https://calattorneysfees.com/deadlines-motion-for-attorneys-fees-was-untimely-because-it-was-served-more-than-180-days-after-a-dismissal/): 4/1 DCA Clarifies Rules For Fee Motion Filing/Service Deadline Where There Is A Dismissal Based On An Unconditional Settlement In Tandem With A Court Notice. Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC, Case No. D084360 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 17, 2026) (published) is an opinion which is must reading for litigants and practitioners with respect to timely filing and serving an attorney’s fees motion after a dismissal has occurred based on the terms of an unconditional settlement notice from a court clerk. In this matter, plaintiff notified the trial court of a settlement at a trial readiness conference, prompting the court […]
- [Arbitration: Another Post-Hohenshelt Reversal For The Defense Arguably Not Paying One Invoice On Time](https://calattorneysfees.com/arbitration-another-post-hohenshelt-reversal-for-the-defense-arguably-not-paying-one-invoice-on-time/): Although Remanded, Facts Suggested A Possible Delay Because Of A Calamity Evacuation By Defense Counsel. As we have said before, the CCP § 1281.98 defense missed payment deadline for employer/employee cases have resulted in many reversals and remands.  That also occurred in Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists, Case No. A168297 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 11, 2026) (unpublished).  This one, too, was reversed and remanded.  The appellate court did note that most invoices were paid, except one—with defense counsel saying there was a delay due to a natural calamity requiring her to vacate her home and with the payment still […]
- [SLAPP: Prevailing Defendants Properly Awarded SLAPP Fees Of $53,000, About Half Of The Requested Amount](https://calattorneysfees.com/slapp-prevailing-defendants-properly-awarded-slapp-fees-of-53000-about-half-of-the-requested-amount/): Procedural And Excessiveness Challenges Not Successful On Appeal. Litigants and practitioners are reminded that mandatory SLAPP fees, if granted to a true prevailing defendant, are hard to overturn as to amount where the record is clear that the defendants were true prevailing parties in entirety. That was the case in Homeport Insurance v. Weltin, et al., Case No. A173086 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 11, 2026) (unpublished).  However, the SLAPP fees motion was contested, with the lower court basically awarding half of the request–$53,000—largely crediting plaintiff’s expert on some reductions.  Plaintiff appealed, but to no avail. It raised an argument […]
- [Discovery: $20,000 Discovery Sanctions For Litigant’s Failure To Meet And Confer On Third Party Subpoena Is Affirmed On Appeal](https://calattorneysfees.com/discovery-20000-discovery-sanctions-for-litigants-failure-to-meet-and-confer-on-third-party-subpoena-is-affirmed-on-appeal/): Substantial Evidence Supported The Result, Not To Mention A $35,000 Reduction In Requested Fees Showed No Arbitrary Result. Discovery disputes are contentious, and lower courts have a hard time on them based on the numerous issues that may be involved.  However, they have no problems sanctioning for a failure to meet and confer.  And that is what happened in HCMC Legal, Inc. v. Hartstein, Case No. B344266 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 11, 2026) (unpublished). No reason to get into the weeds, because the record provided substantial evidence that the litigant requesting information from a third party did not meaningfully […]
- [Deadlines: Failure Of Losing Plaintiff to File A Motion To Tax Trial And Appellate Costs Waived Challenges To Routine Costs Entered By The Clerk](https://calattorneysfees.com/deadlines-failure-of-losing-plaintiff-to-file-a-motion-to-tax-trial-and-appellate-costs-waived-challenges-to-routine-costs-entered-by-the-clerk/): Lower Court Implicitly Extended The Deadline When Plaintiff’s Attorney Indicated Not Receiving The Trial Cost Memorandum (Which Was Cured), With Plaintiff Also Not Showing The Allowed Costs Were Improper—No Reversible Error. In Kirk v. Quirino, Case No. B340782 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 11, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a car accident case, with the lower court amending a judgment to include trial and appellate routine costs of $45,877 after plaintiff filed no motion to strike or tax costs to the two costs memoranda. The appellate court affirmed those awards, because (1) the lower court implicitly granted an extension of time […]
- [Section 1717: Where Plaintiff Pled Claims Based On Operating Agreements With Contractual Fee Clauses, It Did Not Matter If They Had Tort Origins](https://calattorneysfees.com/section-1717-where-plaintiff-pled-claims-based-on-operating-agreements-with-contractual-fee-clauses-it-did-not-matter-if-they-had-tort-origins/): The Dismissed Claims Were “On The Contract” Under Civil Code Section 1717. We think that sometimes litigants and practitioners do not appreciate that Civil Code section 1717’s definition of “on the contract” is liberally construed, meaning that even tort claims based on contractual documents frequently will give rise to fee exposure.  JAJ3, LLC v. Bren, Case Nos. B333853/B339029 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 10, 2026) (unpublished) illustrates this reality. There, plaintiff eventually lost a case after not prevailing against defense demurrers, with the trial court reasoning that the claims were barred by judicial estoppel and claim splitting and did not […]
- [SLAPP: Appellant’s Reversal Of Entire SLAPP Grant Meant That Attorney’s Fees Award Had To Be Revisited Against Previously Prevailing Defendants](https://calattorneysfees.com/slapp-appellants-reversal-of-entire-slapp-grant-meant-that-attorneys-fees-award-had-to-be-revisited-against-previously-prevailing-defendants/): Unsuccessful Claim Work, Impact On Future Litigation, Issues Remaining To Be Litigated, And Whether Defendants Remain The Prevailing Parties Based On SLAPP Denial As To Two Alleged Defamatory Communications Remaining. In White v. Gabriel, Case No. H052203 (6th Dist. Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) (White II), plaintiff sued several defendants for defamation, with two defendants entirely winning SLAPP motions directed at the communications specified in plaintiff’s complaint.  The lower court, while a merits appeal was pending by plaintiff (White I), granted attorney’s fees totaling $573,667.76 to the two defendants (whose counsel voluntarily had written off significant hours) by further reducing the […]
- [Allocation, Fees On Fees, Homeowner Associations, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: Defendant Homeowners Prevailing On Deck/Gazebo Construction Dispute Were Properly Awarded A Total Of $615,118.37 In Fees And Costs](https://calattorneysfees.com/allocation-fees-on-fees-homeowner-associations-reasonableness-of-fees-section-1717-defendant-homeowners-prevailing-on-deck-gazebo-construction-dispute-were-properly-awarded-a-total-of-615118-37/): CC&R And Nuisance Claims Were Intertwined, So No Apportionment Required, And Fee Excessive Claims Were Not Supported By Record Citations. Finley v. Gantz, Case No. D084145 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) reinforces a message we have refrained in the past: homeowner disputes can be expensive for the losing side, which will allow for substantial fee/costs awards under Civil Code section 1717 (as happened in this) or the Davis-Stirling Act fee shifting provision. In this one, plaintiffs sued defendant neighbors for a deck/gazebo construction which allegedly obstructed their view under CC&Rs and under a nuisance theory.  Defendants defensed […]
- [Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Where A Broad Contractual Fees Clause Governed Any Dispute Between The Parties, Fees For Prevailing On A Successful Forum Selection Motion in California Gave Rise To Fees Under CCP §§ 1021, 1032, And 1033.5](https://calattorneysfees.com/fee-clause-interpretation-section-1717-where-a-broad-contractual-fees-clause-governed-any-dispute-between-the-parties-fees-for-prevailing-on-a-successful-forum-selection-motion-in-california-gave-r/): Section 1717 Did Not Give Rise To Fees Based Upon DisputeSuite Opinion. This opinion highlights the importance of wording in a fees clause.  Broader language, such as “the prevailing party in any dispute or proceeding arising hereunder shall be entitled to recovery its costs and expenses incurred therein (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses),” can give rise to fee entitlement under more general CCP costs/fees provisions even though the entitlement would not lie under Civil Code § 1717. The quoted language above was at issue in a contractual fees clause between two businesses in Velaro, Inc. v. LG Electronics Alabama, […]
- [Employment: Employers Requiring Repayment, Collection, Or Penalties Tethered To Employment Termination Can Be Sued, With Liquidated Penalties And Reasonable Attorney’s Fees Assessed Against Violating Employers](https://calattorneysfees.com/employment-employers-requiring-repayment-collection-or-penalties-tethered-to-employment-termination-can-be-sued-with-liquidated-penalties-and-reasonable-attorneys-fees-assessed-against-vi/): There Are Some Specified Exclusions. Assembly Bill No. 692, adding Business and Professions Code section 16608 and Labor Code section 926 to the statutory law effective January 1, 2026, prohibits employers from entering into employment contract containing terms that require repayment, collection, or penalties triggered by termination of employment. Employees have the right to bring a civil action against employers who include such prohibited clauses in agreements signed on or after January 1, 2026. The remedies available include the greater of actual damages or $5,000 per employee, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs.  (See new Lab. Code, […]
- [Landlord/Tenant, Section 1717: Where Tenants Prevailed Against Landlord’s Cross-Claim Alleging A Contractual Breach Claim, Tenants Were Entitled To Reasonable Fees](https://calattorneysfees.com/landlord-tenant-section-1717-where-tenants-prevailed-against-landlords-cross-claim-alleging-a-contractual-breach-claim-tenants-were-entitled-to-reasonable-fees/): Denial Of Fees Was Improper, Because Tenants Showed The Written Lease With A Fees Clause Was Inapplicable. In Hernandez v. Kocsis, Case No. G064238 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 4, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Sanchez, the 4/3 DCA reversed a denial of attorney’s fees requested by plaintiffs/tenants.  The case involved a negligence/premises liability case by tenants based on an apartment fire, but landlord brought a cross-complaint which did allege a contractual breach claim (praying for fees also) based on allowing an adult son to reside on the premises and smoke on the premises.  Tenants were successful on their affirmative […]
- [Family Law: Although Ex-Wife Did Not Strictly Comply With Income And Expense Documentation, She Did Substantially Comply Such That The Denial On The Technicality Had To Be Reversed, Remanding To Determine The Family Code § 2030 Fees To Be Awarded](https://calattorneysfees.com/family-law-although-ex-wife-did-not-strictly-comply-with-income-and-expense-documentation-she-did-substantially-comply-such-that-the-denial-on-the-technicality-had-to-be-reversed-remanding-to-deter/): Ex-Wife Did Substantially Comply Before The 2030 Hearing, With Husband Stipulating To A Disparity. In Marriage of Stewart, Case No. B339569 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 30, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife sought two tranches of Family Code section 2030 “needs-based” fees because she was hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to her divorce attorney for trial and appellate work.  Ex-husband acknowledged the financial disparity between the two sides.  However, the lower court denied the 2030 requests because ex-wife had failed to comply with rules governing income and expense documentation, even though she did deliver recent financial information by the second […]
- [Sanctions: Sanctions For Missing A Final Status Conference Were Appropriate, But Had To Be Reduced For Calibration To The Actual Expenses For the Missed FSC](https://calattorneysfees.com/sanctions-sanctions-for-missing-a-final-status-conference-were-appropriate-but-had-to-be-reduced-for-calibration-to-the-actual-expenses-for-the-missed-fsc/): No Huge Dispute, But Appellate Court Only Awarded Sanctions For Direct Expenses Relating To the FSC Violation. Steele v. Paulee Body Shop, Inc., Case No. B344258 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 30, 2026) (unpublished) shows how a sanctions request needs to be calibrated to expenses incurred on the actual violation, not ancillary expenses which are claimed by the prevailing party. There, it was undisputed a party missed an initial Final Status Conference appearance.  If the expenses for that were considered, they totaled $2,430.  However, the other side claimed more, $13,770—which was awarded—for certain subsidiary costs.  The 2/3 DA reversed and […]
- [Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $3,000 Discovery Sanctions Order Reversed And Remanded For A Lack Of Competent Substantiation](https://calattorneysfees.com/substantiation-of-reasonableness-of-fees-3000-discovery-sanctions-order-reversed-and-remanded-for-a-lack-of-competent-substantiation/): A Generalized Estimate Of Fees Expended On A Discovery Dispute Was Inadequate. In Marriage of Pair, Case No. F089740 (5th Dist. Jan. 29, 2026) (unpublished), a $3,000 sanctions award against ex-wife and her counsel in a discovery dispute was reversed.  It was not reversed on the merits.  Instead, it was reversed and remanded because the $3,000 in incurred fees was based on a conclusory declaration statement about an estimate of what was expended by the winning side.  The Fifth District said not enough: too conclusory, with some explanation of hourly rates and an accounting of time expended to make sure […]
- [Private Attorney General: Where Plaintiffs Obtained Revisions Under Certain Deceptive Contracts, They Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Of $1.5 Million](https://calattorneysfees.com/private-attorney-general-where-plaintiffs-obtained-revisions-under-certain-deceptive-contracts-they-were-entitled-to-ccp-%c2%a7-1021-5-fees-of-1-5-million/): Plaintiff Lost Restitution Claims Under The UCL, But They Were A Catalyst. As any defense attorney knows in public interest or class action cases, a catalyst theory is something to pay close attention to.  It may allow for recovery of private attorney general fees even if the plaintiff ultimately does not receive restitution. Howard v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of L.A., Case No. B333546 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 28, 2026) (unpublished) illustrates this point in the right circumstances.  Plaintiffs obtained a ruling under an Unfair Competition Law case that deceptive fees were charged through burial contracts, but no restitution […]
- [Ethics: Although Discovery Sanctions Affirmed In A Family Law Matter, Appellate Court Advises Attorneys Not To Make Character Attacks In Appellate Briefs](https://calattorneysfees.com/ethics-although-discovery-sanctions-affirmed-in-a-family-law-matter-appellate-court-advises-attorneys-not-to-make-character-attacks-in-appellate-briefs/): It Reminds All Attorneys, Even Younger Ones, To Safeguard Their Reputations—You Have To Preserve Them! No need to post on the specifics of Marriage of Alexander, Case No. A172184 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 27, 2026, posted on Jan. 28, 2026) (unpublished), which affirmed discovery sanctions imposed in a very contentious family law case.  However, at the end of the opinion, the appellate court reminded practitioners of all ages about two observations of note: (1) attorneys should not generally make ad hominem character attacks on parties, opposing counsel, or trial judges; and (2) attorneys should guard their reputation, especially younger […]
- [Appealability, Costs: Plaintiffs Previously Dismissing A Case Voluntarily Cannot Attempt To Resurrect Arguments Relating To Prior Nonappealable Orders Through A Subsequent Partially Denied Routine Costs Order](https://calattorneysfees.com/appealability-costs-plaintiffs-previously-dismissing-a-case-voluntarily-cannot-attempt-to-resurrect-arguments-relating-to-prior-nonappealable-orders-through-a-subsequent-partially-denied-routine-cos/): The Costs Order Under Review Was Not Final. This post likely will be of interest to appellate attorneys on appealability issues, but it may guide trial level litigation counsel on what type of routine costs orders will be considered as appealable. In Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc., Case No. C102857 (3d Dist. Jan. 28, 2026) (published), plaintiffs previously appealed a summary adjudication after they voluntarily dismissed the entire action with prejudice.  They appealed that one, and it was determined that the dismissal was not an appealable judgment.  Plaintiffs made a motion to set aside their voluntarily dismissal, which was […]
- [Requests For Admission, Section 998: In Automobile Collision Case, CCP § 998 Offer Was Not Invalid For Requiring Consent By Defense Insurer Carriers, And Costs Of Proof Sanctions Properly Denied To Plaintiff](https://calattorneysfees.com/requests-for-admission-section-998-in-automobile-collision-case-ccp-%c2%a7-998-offer-was-not-invalid-for-requiring-consent-by-defense-insurer-carriers-and-costs-of-proof-sanctions-properly-de/): However, The Reasonableness Of The 998 Offer—Not Ruled On By The Lower Court—Had To Be Revisited On Remand. Matthews v. Ryan, Case Nos. B335736 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 28, 2026) (partially published; 998 discussion published, but costs of proof sanctions discussion not published) has two good discussions, one on 998 offers which condition a settlement on an insurer’s consent and one on denial of RFA costs of proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420.  However, the ultimate lesson is that the defense in a personal injury case needs to seriously evaluate 998 offers, even early on, or face […]
- [Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees:  $33,712.91 Fee Award To Prevailing Party Neighbor Was Affirmed In A Complicated Civil Harassment Matter](https://calattorneysfees.com/reasonableness-of-fees-special-fee-shifting-statutes-substantiation-of-reasonableness-of-fees-33712-91-fee-award-to-prevailing-party-neighbor-was-affirmed-in-a-complicated-civil-harassment/): $650 Hourly Rate For 15-Year Attorney And $450 For A Paralegal Were Found Reasonable In A Contentious Santa Clara County Case. Two neighbors had very bad experiences with each other, with one neighbor obtaining a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) and being awarded $33,712.91 in prevailing party attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 against the other neighbor.  The merits of the CHRO determination and the fee award was affirmed on appeal in Vo v. Le, Case No. H051626 (6th Dist. Jan. 27, 2026; posted Jan. 28, 2026) (unpublished). The principal challenge was to the trial court’s award of $650 hourly […]
- [Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: $599,370 Attorney’s Fees Award Under A Settlement Agreement Confirmed Because Challenging Party Waived An Appeal](https://calattorneysfees.com/fee-clause-interpretation-settlement-599370-attorneys-fees-award-under-a-settlement-agreement-confirmed-because-challenging-party-waived-an-appeal/): Case Also Has A Good Discussion Of Trial Court Retention Of Jurisdiction To Enforce A Settlement After The 1993 Amendment To CCP § 664.6. Hutchinson v. Lewis Towing 2, Inc., Case No. F088314 (5th Dist. Jan. 27, 2026) (unpublished) has a good discussion on two issues:  (1) retention of jurisdiction against dismissed defendants under CCP § 664.6 where the settlement provides for retention; and (2) the ability to appeal a fees award based on a waiver clause even though it did not retard an ability to oppose a fee request at the trial level. In this case, plaintiffs, two former […]
- [Deadlines, Lodestar, Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees: In Probate Quabble, $63,958.75 To A Prevailing Party For Appeal Fees Was No Abuse Of Discretion](https://calattorneysfees.com/deadlines-lodestar-probate-reasonableness-of-fees-in-probate-quabble-63958-75-to-a-prevailing-party-for-appeal-fees-was-no-abuse-of-discretion/): Payment By Appellant Did Not Waive Appeal Rights; Trial Court Implicitly Extended Fee Motion Filing Deadline Due To Docketing Issues. In Skytte v. Skytte, Case No. G064930 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2026) (unpublished), a probate dispute among certain family members may be approaching a close after an award of appellate attorney’s fees of $63,958.75 to one prevailing party respondent.  After lots of wrangling, a lower court awarded the indicated fee award to one respondent and against one appellant.  Appellant appealed on numerous grounds, but they were unsuccessful. Respondent argued the appeal should be dismissed because appellant paid the […]
- [Section 998: Assignee Mother Of Claims Bound Her Assignor Son To Acceptance Of A 998 Offer Such That Son Could Not Bring Another Suit Against 998 Offeror](https://calattorneysfees.com/section-998-assignee-mother-of-claims-bound-her-assignor-son-to-acceptance-of-a-998-offer-such-that-son-could-not-bring-another-suit-against-998-offeror/): Lack Of Standing And Res Judicata Drove The Conclusion That The Acceptance Was Final On The Dispute. Burke v. Benworth Capital Partners, LLC, Case No. G064478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2026) (unpublished) is an interesting case which confirms that an accepted and paid CCP § 998 offer by an assignee will divest the assignor of standing and end the dispute on res judicata grounds. What occurred here is that a son, as assignor, assigned claims to his mother, as assignee, against a defendant lender who was alleged to have failed to disburse Paycheck Protection Program funds during the […]
- [Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Winning Tort Claims, But Losing One Contract Claim Against Some Defendants, Was Not Exposed To Attorney’s Fees By Two Set Of Defendants](https://calattorneysfees.com/fee-clause-interpretation-nonsignatories-prevailing-party-plaintiff-winning-tort-claims-but-losing-one-contract-claim-against-some-defendants-was-not-exposed-to-attorneys-fees-by-two-set/): In Fact, Because He Prevailed, Plaintiff Was Entitled To Fees Against One Set Of Defendants, But Not A Nonsignatory Because He Only Brought Tort Claims. Appeals, although the odds are against them, can sometimes result in a reversal of fortune.   That did occur in Moses v. Rok Drinks, Ltd., Case No. B339392 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 23, 2026) (unpublished) because plaintiff did prevail on tort claims against contract signatories where a broad fee clause was involved and did not prevail on tort claims against a nonsignatory (but the absence of a contract claim against the nonsignatory factored big). In […]
- [Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation: Broad Fees Clause Allowed Law Firm To Recover Both Trial and Appellate Fees For Prevailing In An Action/Appeal Attempting To Void An Arbitration Agreement](https://calattorneysfees.com/arbitration-fee-clause-interpretation-broad-fees-clause-allowed-law-firm-to-recover-both-trial-and-appellate-fees-for-prevailing-in-an-action-appeal-attempting-to-void-an-arbitration-agreement/): Total Fees to Law Firm Came To $416,680.30. Fee-shifting can be a game changer in litigation, including litigation relating to an arbitration where the fees clause is broad in nature.  Plaintiff client learned that lesson all too well in litigation against his former counsel, as demonstrated by Milder v. Holley, Case No. B331152 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 23, 2026) (unpublished).  What happened is that former client unsuccessfully tried, in litigation, to void an arbitration agreement as against his former attorneys.  Client’s problem was that the retainer agreement had a broad fees clause, applying to fees incurred “in any action, […]
- [Allocation, Homeowner Associations, Lodestar: Plaintiff Replacement Trustee Losing Condo Fire Repair Lawsuit Under Governing Documents And Interrelated Tort Claims Properly Assessed With Attorney’s Fees In Favor Of HOA And Condo Manager](https://calattorneysfees.com/allocation-homeowner-associations-lodestar-plaintiff-replacement-trustee-losing-condo-fire-repair-lawsuit-under-governing-documents-and-interrelated-tort-claims-properly-assessed-with-attorney/): $102,547.50 Was The Award, With No Apportionment Necessary And With It Being Reasonable In Nature. LaPay v. The Fairways Homeowner’s Assn., Case No. E082827 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 23, 2026) (unpublished) is a case showing how an HOA acted reasonably in making fire-related damage repairs when it could not locate an owner and demonstrating how attorney’s fees will be awarded to the HOA/condominium manager making good decisions like the ones in this matter. In this one, original trustor of a trust and condo owner went missing in action following a fire in an adjacent condo that resulted in damage […]
- [Section 1717: Illegal Contract, Void From The Start, Did Not Allow Plaintiff Prevailing Solely On a Negligent Misrepresentation Claim To Garner Fees](https://calattorneysfees.com/section-1717-illegal-contract-void-from-the-start-did-not-allow-plaintiff-prevailing-solely-on-a-negligent-misrepresentation-claim-to-garner-fees/): Lower Court Determined Both Parties “In Pari Delicto,” So No Fees Were Warranted. The Fourth District, Division Three, in S&S Engineering and Construction v. Ashby Enterprises, LLC, Case No. G062701 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2026) (unpublished), decided that a lower court’s denial of fees to a plaintiff winning on one negligent misrepresentation claim was not entitled to attorney’s fees.  The reason was that the commercial leases were held to be illegal, void, on a COO issue; however, the lower court’s determination that the parties were “in pari delicto” (one of the Latin phrases still in use) did not […]
- [Consumer Statutes, Lodestar: Lower Court’s 87.6% Reduction In A Lemon Law Fee Request Was Reversed As An Abuse Of Discretion Based On The Record On The Lodestar Analysis](https://calattorneysfees.com/consumer-statutes-lodestar-lower-courts-87-6-reduction-in-a-lemon-law-fee-request-was-reversed-as-an-abuse-of-discretion-based-on-the-record-on-the-lodestar-analysis/): Awarding $15,000 In A Lemon Law Case Requesting $81,455.83 In Fees/Costs Was Not Fair And Required A Revisit. In Rosales v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. G063792 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2026) (unpublished), a settlement was reached in a lemon law case where attorney’s fees became the important issue at the back end of the litigation—not a surprise in many of these situations.  Plaintiff’s attorneys, on behalf of prevailing car buyer in a Song-Beverly Act case, moved for $75,906 in attorney’s fees and $5,549.83 in costs (a total of $81,455.83).  The lower court found the request excessive, […]
- [Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Undertaking: Prevailing Defendant In A Derivative Lawsuit—After Losing A Bond Motion--Can Seek Trial And Appellate Costs, Not Limited By The $50,000 Bonding Amount Specified In Corporations Code Section 17709.02](https://calattorneysfees.com/special-fee-shifting-statutes-undertaking-prevailing-defendant-in-a-derivative-lawsuit-after-losing-a-bond-motion-can-seek-trial-and-appellate-costs-not-limited-by-the-50000-bonding/): Section 17709.02 Does Not Trump The CCP § 1032 Trial Routine Costs Statute Or The CRC 8.891 Appellate Routine Costs Provision. In Barrios v. Chraghchian, Case No. B341773 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 20, 2026) (published), a defendant brought a bond motion under Corporations Code section 17709.02 to have a derivative lawsuit plaintiff furnish security up to a $50,000 capped amount, losing the motion.  Later, defendant prevailed in the lawsuit and moved for an award of trial level routine costs (CCP § 1032) and appellate level routine costs (CRC 8.891).  Those requests were granted by the lower court. On appeal, […]
- [Arbitration: $220,817 Arbitration Fee Award Is Affirmed In Favor Of One Plaintiff, Because Moncharsh Did Not Show A Basis For Arbitral Reversal](https://calattorneysfees.com/arbitration-220817-arbitration-fee-award-is-affirmed-in-favor-of-one-plaintiff-because-moncharsh-did-not-show-a-basis-for-arbitral-reversal/): Lower Court’s Denial Of Post-Judgment Vacatur Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff/Employee Was Justified. In Fishman v. Advisors LLP, Case No. B334179 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 15, 2026) (unpublished), a couple of former lawyers/nonequity partners sued their former law firm for compensation and over the validity of a non-compete clause.  There were various proceedings; however, one of the plaintiffs did recover fees under Labor Code section 218.5 after an arbitration award where there was an acceptance of a CCP § 998 offer, but its silence meant that the fees were at issue.  The superior court confirmed the arbitration award, but rejected […]
- [Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers: $2,376,677.50 Fee Award Is Affirmed On Appeal](https://calattorneysfees.com/employment-lodestar-multipliers-2376677-50-fee-award-is-affirmed-on-appeal/): Lower Court Did Reduce The Request By $348,208.50, And It Correctly Denied A Positive Multiplier Request By Plaintiff. In Maas v. McKinnon Broadcasting Co., Case No. D082767 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 13, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a $1,775,000 jury verdict after a four-week trial in a discrimination case, although she did not win on all her claims.  The lower court awarded plaintiff $2,376,677.50 in fees but it denied a positive multiplier request, triggering dueling appeals by both sides.  The Court of Appeal affirmed.  With respect to the defense argument that she had limited success, the appellate court observed this […]
- [Allocation, Section 1717: Appellate Court Affirms A Substantial Fee And Costs Award In A Mixed Contract/Tort Case Based On Santisas](https://calattorneysfees.com/allocation-section-1717-appellate-court-affirms-a-substantial-fee-and-costs-award-in-a-mixed-contract-tort-case-based-on-santisas/): Case Drew Three Opinions, A Concurrence Finding 70% Defense Allocation For Tort Claims Was Reasonable, But With A Dissenting Justice Finding More Delineation Between Contract/Tort Claims Was In Order. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) [our Leading Case #6] was substantively upfront and center in National Merchants Assn. v. Commercial Bank of California, Case No. B341687 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 12, 2026) (unpublished), but the matter of how to allocate between contract and tort claims drew splintered opinions in this matter. In National Merchants Assn., plaintiff voluntarily dismissed a case without prejudice on the edge of trial with […]
- [Homeowner Associations: Losing Party’s Failure To Oppose Prevailing Neighbor’s Fee Award Was Fatal On Appeal](https://calattorneysfees.com/homeowner-associations-losing-partys-failure-to-oppose-prevailing-neighbors-fee-award-was-fatal-on-appeal/): A Forfeiture Occurred. Bauer v. Likhterman, Case No. G064695 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 12, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Scott for a 3-0 panel, reminds litigants and practitioners that an appellate challenge to a fee award will be forfeited if there is no opposition to the fees motion in the court below.  (Blackburn v. Charnley, 117 Cal.App.4th 758, 769 (2004).)
- [Arbitration, Section 1717:  Barbanell Decision Now Published](https://calattorneysfees.com/arbitration-section-1717-barbanell-decision-now-published/): Opinion Held That A Prevailing Party In A Discrete Proceeding To Obtain A Replacement Arbitrator Is Entitled To Contractual Attorney’s Fees Award. On December 22, 2025, we posted on Barbanell v. Lodge, Case No. D081493 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 17, 2025), which was unpublished at the time.  It held that a prevailing party in a discrete proceeding to obtain a replacement arbitrator was entitled to a fee award under Civil Code section 1717.  We can now report that the opinion was published on January 8, 2026.
- [Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Winning Plaintiff In Car Towing Dispute Did Not Have Fee Recovery Entitlement Under Civil Code Section 3070](https://calattorneysfees.com/special-fee-shifting-statutes-winning-plaintiff-in-car-towing-dispute-did-not-have-fee-recovery-entitlement-under-civil-code-section-3070/): Interlocutory Determination Of Entitlement Was Not Binding, With Section 3070 Being Inapplicable With Respect To Fee Recovery. Plaintiff won an apartment complex car towing dispute against some defendants, but she was denied requested attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 3070 in Ramsey v. Moore St. Investments, Inc., Case Nos. D084287 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 8, 2026) (unpublished).  Plaintiff’s appeal was unsuccessful on the fee denial.  Although the lower court initially had determined there might be fee entitlement in the judgment, that determination was interlocutory, not binding, and subject to change.  (PR Burke Corp. v. Victor Valley Wastewater […]
- [SLAPP: SLAPP Merits Appeal Did Not Stay Any Fee Proceeding For The Prevailing SLAPP Defendant](https://calattorneysfees.com/slapp-slapp-merits-appeal-did-not-stay-any-fee-proceeding-for-the-prevailing-slapp-defendant/): Plaintiff’s Aggressive Litigation Tactics Justified The Amount Of The Fee Award. In OneTaste Incorporated v. NetFlix, Case No. B342250 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion targeted against his defamation suit (the merits of which were affirmed in an earlier appellate court opinion), with the lower court awarding the SLAPP prevailing defendant the fully requested fees of $251,870 and costs of $3,780.51.  Plaintiff’s principal argument was that the fee proceeding was stayed while the merits appeal was pending, a challenge rejected by the appellate panel.  (Robertson v. Rodriguez, 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 360 (1995).)  With […]
- [Ethics, Settlement: Client May Ratify An Unauthorized Settlement Unless It Was Not Truly Voluntary](https://calattorneysfees.com/ethics-settlement-client-may-ratify-an-unauthorized-settlement-unless-it-was-not-truly-voluntary/): Clients In the Case Did Ratify, Which Earned The Settling Former Attorneys A Nice Contingency Fee Award. Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP, Case No. B341157 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 8, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion published) contains a good discussion of when a client can ratify an unauthorized settlement reached by former attorneys and the repercussions flowing from that ratification.  It reinforces that a client has the option to rescind the settlement or to ratify it, if the ratification was not attributable to duress and was not necessary to minimize client losses.  None of these ratification factors were present […]
- [Private Attorney General: Lower Court Abused Its Discretion In Awarding Fees Under CCP § 1021.5 Without Considering Specific Factors Outlined In The Housing Accountability Act](https://calattorneysfees.com/private-attorney-general-lower-court-abused-its-discretion-in-awarding-fees-under-ccp-%c2%a7-1021-5-without-considering-specific-factors-outlined-in-the-housing-accountability-act/): $1,286,144.37 Fee Award Against City Reversed And Remanded.  Coalition of Pacificans for An Updated Plan v. City Council of the City of Pacifica, Case No. A170704 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 30, 2025) (partially published; substantive fee discussion published) stands for the proposition that in fashioning a private attorney general fee award under CCP § 1021.5, a lower court must take into account specific factors outlined under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) where it applies, even in a CEQA case.  The appellate court indicated that environmental factors can be considered in setting a fee under the HAA.  This resulted in […]
- [Section 1717: Fee Recovery By Self-Represented Husband Reversed As A Matter Of Law Under Trope Prohibition, With CCP § 1021 Characterization Being Inconsequential](https://calattorneysfees.com/section-1717-fee-recovery-by-self-represented-husband-reversed-as-a-matter-of-law-under-trope-prohibition-with-ccp-%c2%a7-1021-characterization-being-inconsequential/): Plus, Wife Also Represented By Husband Lawyer Had Commonly Held Interests, So Her Fees Were Barred Under Trope. As we come to the end of 2025, we have a published opinion on the Trope v. Katz,11 Cal.4th 274 (1995) prohibition [our Leading Case #12].  The case is Honchariw v. PFM CA REIT, LLC, Case No. B337927 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 31, 2025) [partially published; fee discussion published].  What happened in this one is that a referee found in favor of borrowers as far as payment of default interest to the tune of $261,489, and the referee also awarded borrowers […]
- [Appeal Sanctions: Appellate Court Sanctions Appellants’ Attorney For Filing A False Statement Of Settlement](https://calattorneysfees.com/appeal-sanctions-appellate-court-sanctions-appellants-attorney-for-filing-a-false-statement-of-settlement/): Also, Respondents Can Get OSC Response Fees And Costs On The Issue. All practitioners should get attuned to the fact that appellate courts are imposing sanctions more frequently for CRC infractions, including referencing AI hallucinations and filing false paperwork.  In Horton v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. D085379 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiffs/appellants’ attorney was sanctioned $3,000 for filing a false notice of settlement with the appellate court, the amount payable to the appellate clerk.  In addition, the defense was entitled to its fees and costs for responding to the OSC re sanctions issued by […]
- [Homeowner Associations, Lodestar: $52,076 Fee Award To Prevailing Homeowner In Director Election Challenge Is Affirmed On Appeal](https://calattorneysfees.com/homeowner-associations-lodestar-52076-fee-award-to-prevailing-homeowner-in-director-election-challenge-is-affirmed-on-appeal/): Lack Of Reporter’s Transcript Meant There Was An Inadequate Record, But The Lower Court Correctly Applied Lodestar Principles In Fashioning An Award. Plaintiff homeowner successfully challenged an HOA board of directors election in Cruschen v. Annandale Townhouse Assn., Case No. B341189 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 24, 2025) (unpublished), although not winning some of his challenges and then moving to recover Davis-Stirling Act prevailing party fees from the HOA.  After a contested hearing at which no court reporter was present, the lower court awarded homeowner $52,070 in fees—slightly cutting the lodestar request of $54,937.52 and fees on fees request down […]
- [Arbitration: 2/6 DCA Remands Employer’s Failure To Timely Pay Arbitration Expenses Post-Hohenshelt To See If Employer Had Plausible Excuses](https://calattorneysfees.com/arbitration-2-6-dca-remands-employers-failure-to-timely-pay-arbitration-expenses-post-hohenshelt-to-see-if-employer-had-plausible-excuses/): Employer Paid Expenses 7 Days Late. The 2/6 DCA, in line with other intermediate appellate courts, remanded a decision not excusing an employer from paying arbitration expenses within 30 days, in Doe v. Lawyers for Employee and Consumer Rights, Case No. B330052 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 23, 2025) (unpublished), referencing Hohenshelt, 18 Cal.5th 310.   Given that employer only paid 7 days late, it had an opportunity to demonstrate if its untimely payment was not willful, fraudulent, or grossly negligent, preventing the case from going back before the superior court rather than arbitration. 
- [Year in Review - 2025](https://calattorneysfees.com/year-in-review-2025/): Mike, Shanna, and Marc’s Top Twenty-Two Fee Decisions for 2025—Part 2 of 2. Here is Part 2 of our Top 22 Fee/Costs Decisions for 2025.  Happy Holidays to our readers! 11. Section 998.  Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, 17 Cal.5th 592(Cal. Supreme Court Mar. 20, 2025):  CCP § 998 offers do apply to pretrial settlements, rather than just to judgments or to arbitration awards, for purposes of cost-shifting, although the parties can allocate things differently under their settlement/compromise agreements. 10.  SLAPP.  Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 109 Cal.App.5th 635(1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 12, 2025):  Seven defendants properly awarded $683,417.50 […]
- [Year In Review - 2025](https://calattorneysfees.com/mike-shanna-and-marcs-top-twenty-two-fee-decisions-for-2025-part-1-of-2/): Mike, Shanna, and Marc’s Top Twenty-Two Fee Decisions for 2025– Part 1 of 2. As is our tradition during the Holidays, we post on the top twenty-two fees/costs decisions from 2025, keeping in mind that this is a subjective ranking and does not take away from other published decisions of interest to litigants, practitioners, and the public in the areas of attorney’s fees and costs.  Here is Part 1 of 2. 22.  Construction/Civil Rights.  Johnson v. Rubylin, Inc., Case No. H053076 (6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2025) [published]: The attorney-client privilege does not support a disability plaintiff in a construction access […]
- [Arbitration: Where Parties Failed To Remind Arbitrator About Stipulation To Bear Fees/Costs, Subsequent Award Of Fees To Plaintiff In The Arbitration Was Not Subject To Vacatur](https://calattorneysfees.com/arbitration-where-parties-failed-to-remind-arbitrator-about-stipulation-to-bear-fees-costs-subsequent-award-of-fees-to-plaintiff-in-the-arbitration-was-not-subject-to-vacatur/): Circumstances Did Not Fall Into “Legally Dispositive Facts” Vacatur Principle. In VIP Mortgage Incorporated v. Gates, No. 24-7624 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2025) (published), a vacatur request was denied where an arbitration award granted attorney’s fees and costs to a plaintiff on the defense’s counterclaims even though the parties had stipulated that fees and costs would be borne by other sides as it related to the counterclaims.  The arbitration was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.  The facts showed that the parties failed to remind the arbitrator about the stipulation, which led the Court of […]

## Pages

- [Contributors](https://calattorneysfees.com/contributors/): William M. (Mike) Hensley William M. (Mike) Hensley is of counsel in the Santa Ana office of Frost Brown Todd LLP, and a member of the Firm’s Appellate/Business and Commercial Litigation/Real Estate practice groups.  He has extensive experience in bench and jury trials, binding arbitrations, judicial references, mediations, and appellate work in state and federal courts throughout California.  Mr. Hensley also has appeared pro hac vice for clients in federal courts located in Arizona, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Wyoming, Texas, and Florida.       Mr. Hensley received his B.A. in speech communication from the University of Southern California in 1976, graduating with summa cum laude honors.  He then received his […]
- [Articles](https://calattorneysfees.com/articles/): Explore thousands of curated case law summaries, expert analyses, and legal insights tailored for California attorneys. Our Articles page is your gateway to over 10,000 cited cases and abstracts — organized for fast reference and strategic research.
- [California Attorneys Fees](https://calattorneysfees.com/): Recent Articles Services About Cal Attorneys Fees Cal Attorneys Fees is a trusted legal research platform designed for California lawyers to efficiently review case law and access concise abstracts relevant to their ongoing matters. With over 10,000 cited cases and articles, it serves as a comprehensive repository for informed, strategic advocacy. Contact Us Have questions or need support? Reach out to the Cal Attorneys Fees team for assistance with case law access, article submissions, or account inquiries — we’re here to help California lawyers work smarter and faster.
- [Statutes](https://calattorneysfees.com/statutes/): Civil Code 1717. (a) In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who isdetermined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he orshe is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitledto reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs. Where a contract provides for attorney’s fees, as set forth above,that provision shall be construed as applying to the entirecontract, unless each party […]
- [Leading Cases](https://calattorneysfees.com/leading-cases/)
- [Ethics Opinions](https://calattorneysfees.com/ethics-opinions/): FORMAL OPINION NO. 2008-175 FORMAL OPINION NO. 2007-172 FORMAL OPINION NO. 2006-171 Funds withdrawn from a client trust account. FORMAL OPINION NO. 2006-170 Contingency fee agreements containing an attorney’s charging lien. FORMAL OPINION NO. 2005-169 FORMAL OPINION NO. 2002-160 FORMAL OPINION NO. 2002-159 Is it ethically permissible for a lawyer to: (1) to tell a potential client of the possibility of financing the legal representation by taking out a mortgage loan on the client’s real property and (2) to refer the client to an independent broker who might arrange the financing, where the resulting loan funds are placed in an […]
- [Categories](https://calattorneysfees.com/categories/)
- [Contact](https://calattorneysfees.com/contact/): Mike Hensley and Marc Alexander can be contacted as follows:  email:  calattorneysfees@gmail.com phone:  714.852.6800 fax:  714.852.6899 work address:  Frost Brown Todd, LLP, 1 MacArthur Place, Suite 200, Santa Ana, California 92707
- [Rules of Professional Conduct](https://calattorneysfees.com/rules-of-professional-conduct/): Rule 2-200. Financial Arrangements Among Lawyers (A) A member shall not divide a fee for legal services with a lawyer who is not a partner of, associate of, or shareholder with the member unless: (1) The client has consented in writing thereto after a full disclosure has been made in writing that a division of fees will be made and the terms of such division; and (2) The total fee charged by all lawyers is not increased solely by reason of the provision for division of fees and is not unconscionable as that term is defined in rule 4-200. (B) […]
- [Sample Page](https://calattorneysfees.com/sample-page/): This is an example page. It’s different from a blog post because it will stay in one place and will show up in your site navigation (in most themes). Most people start with an About page that introduces them to potential site visitors. It might say something like this: Hi there! I’m a bike messenger by day, aspiring actor by night, and this is my website. I live in Los Angeles, have a great dog named Jack, and I like piña coladas. (And gettin’ caught in the rain.) …or something like this: The XYZ Doohickey Company was founded in 1971, […]


[comment]: # (Generated by Hostinger Tools Plugin)