$700,000 Was Fee Award, With Appellate Court Sustaining $686,500 Of It In Conceded Reductions.
Defendant in Kalfin v. Kalfin, Case No. G047275 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 15, 2013) (unpublished) was hit with a $1.4 million compensatory and $260,000 punitive damages award on causes of action for contractual breach and financial abuse in Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30 (with the elder abuse scheme having a fee-shifting provision in favor of the prevailing party, section 15657.5(a)).
Plaintiff then requested a $893,465 lodestar plus a 4.0 multiplier. After a contested fee proceeding, the lower court reduced the lodestar by 22%, awarding $700,000 in attorney’s fees to plaintiff and denying the multiplier request. This prompted an appeal by defendant, who challenged the amount of the award as (1) being excessive, (2) being the product of a illegal fee-splitting agreement between counsel for plaintiff, and (3) being the product of an unconscionable contingency fee agreement.
None of these challenges held up on appeal.
The trial judge did reduce the lodestar request by 22%, and plaintiff failed to meet her burden on appeal in specifically challenging the alleged infirm work items at the trial court level. (Premier Medical Mgt. Systems, Inc. v. CIGA, 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564 (2008).)
The fee-splitting challenge did not gain traction, because the opposing party does not have standing to contest any fee-splitting violation under California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-200–only the client does. (Gregori v. Bank of America, 207 Cal.App.3d 291, 303 (1989).)
With respect to the argument that the contingency fee agreement was unconscionable and violated rule 4-200(A), this argument also rejected based on the opponent’s lack of standing.
Presiding Justice O’Leary penned the decision for the 3-0 panel.