$101,178.62 in Attorney Work Must Be Reconsidered For Beneficial Result.
In the past, we have discussed many cases which hold that billing records must be presented to the court (as well as the trustee) when an attorney is seeking reimbursement for probate court litigation work. This stems from the trial court’s “special responsibility” to ensure that fee awards are reasonable and the trustee’s administration is prudent (because it is often times the trustee who hires attorneys to carry out routine or extraordinary work on behalf of the trust). (See Donahue v. Donahue, 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 269 (2010); Schwartz v. Labow, 164 Cal.App.4th 417, 427 (2008); Hollaway v. Edwards, 68 Cal.App.4th 94, 98 (1998).) Here is an interesting one where a lower court’s failure to award fees by failing to allow further submissions of detailed fee substantiation was deemed an abuse of discretion–a result which was dependent upon an unusual set of facts.
Kennedy v. Lowthorp Richards McMillan Miller & Templeman, Case No. B220613 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 8, 2011) (unpublished) was a situation where a law firm supplied $101,178.62 in professional services enabling its elderly client to recover title to her home from her daughter and to place it in a trust to provide for her health, maintenance, and support through probate court litigation. The firm submitted its bills for fees and costs to the trustee for payment with the trustee who, in turn, petitioned the court for approval through a declaration that did not include the detailed billings.
A vested remainder beneficiary objected to the fee request. At the hearing on the fee request, the trial court indicated it had a lack of substantiation and then said “simply submit the bill.” Trustee, through counsel, offered to submit the billings and retainer agreement for the court’s review, but the lower court inexplicably denied the request for fees by denying submission of the very evidence it had solicited just moments earlier. Aggrieved law firm appealed.
Result on appeal: reversal and remand to determine fee entitlement and the amount of any fees to be awarded. Given the unusual set of the facts, the appellate court believed that the lower court abused its discretion without reviewing the proffered substantiation–the very records it had but moments before requested.
BLOG UNDERVIEW–Nice case to reinforce an important lesson in claiming fees in probate court: firm billing records are a necessity in probate court fee proceedings. (Donahue v. Donahue, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at 268.)