Fourth District, Division 1 So Holds in Unpublished Decision.
In pro per defendant (a former client) was sued by her family family law attorney for unpaid fees, being hit with a $57,500 contractually-based jury verdict and an award of $50,250 in attorney’s fees, plus prejudgment interest and costs. She appealed the fee award, arguing the award under Civil Code section 1717 was an equal protection violation because it discriminated against in pro per litigants who could not afford an attorney.
No, said the Fourth District, Division 1 in Weiser v. Brown, Case No. D055313 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 8, 2010) (unpublished).
The flaw in this argument is that the focus was improperly placed on her in pro per status rather than the correct focus upon the effect of the contract and its attorney’s fees clause which defendant voluntarily entered into. “By statute, that clause has reciprocal effect, and will therefore let the chips fall where they may, when the prevailing party is determined. (Civ. Code, § 1717.) In this case, [defendant] lost and it would not have made any difference whether she was represented by counsel at the time, or not, for purposes of determining the prevailing party’s attorney fee entitlement. The statute is not unconstitutional.”