No. 1: Ellen Peck Reviews “Fees, Fee Agreements & Arbitrations” in December 2009 Edition of CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL.
Ellen R. Peck, an Escondido sole practitioner and former State Bar Court judge, made these points in her recent California Bar Journal article:
- Except in limited circumstances, most private attorneys have to notify clients they do not carry legal malpractice insurance or that it has lapsed/been terminated (Cal.Rule Prof. Conduct 3-410);
- Incentive awards to class action representatives are discretionary and should not be a bargain point in a fee or retainer agreement (Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-959 (9th Cir. 2009));
- Interest calculations for collecting attorneys must be based on a 365 or 366 day year, not a 360 year, under penalty of being a False Advertising Act violation (Karton v. Dougherty, 171 Cal.App.4th 133, 138 n.1 (2009));
- A retainer agreement’s predispute agreement for binding fees/costs arbitration is enforcement after Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act requirements are exhausted, with the State Bar website having a good sample form for such an arbitration clause (Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, 45 Cal.4th 557, 574-575 (2009));
- A lawyer must consider withdrawing from representation or making disclosures to clients if he/she contemplates including a Civil Code section 1542 waiver in a settlement agreement with a client over a fee dispute, based on the legal malpractice waiver repercussions flowing from the release (State Bar Standing Comm. on Prof. Responsibility & Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2009-178)); and
- Lawyers are generally prohibited from charging, collecting, or receiving any advance fees or other compensation in connection with loan modification legal services (Bus. & Prof. Code, sec. 6106.3(a); Civ. Code, sec. 2944.6).
No. 2: Hon. Edward G. Weil Indicates Prior Settlement Communications In Fee Disputes May Be Admissible in His Article, “Are Settlement Talks Confidential?”, Published in the December 2009 Edition of CALIFORNIA LAWYER.
Hon. Edward G. Weil, a Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge and former California deputy attorney general, cautions that prior settlement communications may be admissible in fee dispute litigation, especially private attorney general fee hearings, fee “catalyst” cases, and ambiguous settlement agreement disputes. He also has a nice compendium about the confidentiality and admissibility of settlement discussions in other contexts.
No. 3: Four Substantive Legal Practice Areas Dominate Malpractice Claims Since 1985, Reports James Podgers in “Practice Pitfalls,” Found In the December 2009 Edition of the ABA JOURNAL.
The ABA Journal article confirms that, between 1985 and 2007 (based on information published in the ABA Standing Committee on Lawyers’ Professional Liability’s annual Profile of Legal Malpractice Claims), four practice field areas have been and still are at the top of the list: plaintiffs personal injury; real estate; family law; and estate, trust and probate. The percentage of all claims reported in the ABA study for 2007 in these top four practice fields break down this way:
- Plaintiffs personal injury – 21.56% (pretty steady, with 21.65% in 1995);
- Real estate – 20.05% (up the most in the top 4, with 14.35% in 1995);
- Family law—10.33% (up slightly, with 9.13% in 1995); and
- Estate, trust and probate – 9.68% (up some, with 7.59% in 1995).