Second District, Division 5 Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Client.
Retainer agreements usually are enforced by their terms, with any unambiguous language governing in any event and ambiguous language most often construed against the drafting lawyer. The next case illustrates that the “scope of representation” language, if precise, will be construed as it is written.
Chodos v. Spector, Case No. B223348 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 21, 2010) (unpublished) concerned a lawyer suing a trustee personally for unpaid fees rendered in connection with representing that same person in his capacity as a trustee. The retention agreement between lawyer and trustee was clear that the scope of representation was to represent Mr. Spector in his capacity as trustee of various trusts. However, after Mr. Spector resigned as trustee of the trusts, lawyer sued Mr. Spector personally to recover $145,175 in unpaid fee charges. The lower court granted summary judgment in client’s favor.
The appellate court affirmed, finding the retention agreement was unambiguous and that the law quite appropriately provides that a trustee cannot be sued individually when the representation was in his trustee capacity.
BLOG UNDERVIEW--Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Kenneth R. Freeman was the trial judge who correctly granted summary judgment in client’s favor.
Comments