Retainer Agreements: “Framework” Retainer Agreements Do Not Create A Current Attorney-Client Relationship Agreement Between Counsel And Former Client

Fourth District, Division 3 Distinguishes “Framework” From Classic Retainer Agreements.

     In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior Court (City of Newport Beach), Case No. G044223 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 22, 2011) (certified for publication), our local Santa Ana appellate court decided that a “framework” retainer agreement--an open-ended agreement affording counsel the option to create new arrangements without future writings, but relating to specific past matters with minimum legal work--does not create a current attorney-client relationship. No conflict of issue arises from these “frameworks,” to be distinguished from classic retainer agreements where a true fee is paid to incentivize the attorney to give up future work. Result was based on realism, you might say, in an opinion authored by a 3-0 panel consisting of Justices Bedsworth, Fybel, and Ikola.

              Pop Quiz:  As of the date of this post, which of the three judges above had his own Wikipedia entry?