July 2, 2014

Retainer Agreements: Trope Prohibition—A Suggestion On How To Potentially Recoup With The Right Retainer Language

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Gerald Knapton Provides Some Insights In Recent July 2014 California Lawyer. ​For anyone following our blog, you know about the Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 292 (1995) prohibition which bans in pro per lawyers (subject to jurisprudence on lawyers truly involved with in pro per representation versus those truly advocating their independent interests in […]

Common Fund/Deadlines/Probate: Trust Beneficiaries Seeking Fees Under Common Fund Doctrine Should Have Been Allowed Something

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Probate

CRC Rules on Filing Fee Motions Did Not Govern Probate Proceedings. ​The overall, convoluted probate dispute in Sheen v. Sheen, Case No. B243847 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 1, 2014) (unpublished)—although colorful—does not involve extended discussion on the facts, although the appellate court did reverse lower court failures to award attorney’s fees to beneficiaries given

Probate/Special Fee Shifting Statute: $4,812 Venue Denial Order Properly Assessed Against Attorney In Probate Case

Cases: Probate, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Bad Faith Not Required, But Found and Sustained On Appeal. ​The interesting thing about this blog is that we, the co-contributors, learn something each day. ​Here is what we learned in the probate dispute of McDonnell v. Jarvis, Case No. H037704 (6th Dist. June 30, 2014) (unpublished), after we briefly summarize the case. The probate

Reasonableness Of Fees: Failure To Particularize Objections To Entries Did Not Carry The Deal On Challenged Fee Award

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Block Billing Not Per Se Objectionable. ​In Kalicki v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. D063508 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 30, 2014) (unpublished), Bank appealed a residential borrowers’ fee award of $255,135 as being unreasonable, even though the trial judge did reduce the request a little. ​The fee amount challenge did not result in

Costs/POOF/SLAPP: Two-Fer—Appellate Costs Award Affirmed Based On Costs Memorandum And $37,857.97 SLAPP Fees/Costs Award Goes POOF! Upon Reversal Of SLAPP Grant

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

Karnazes v. Hartford, Case No. A139421 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 27, 2014) (unpublished) ​In a long-standing antagonistic battle between two former law partners, a cross-respondent was awarded costs by the appellate court after a cross-appeal was dismissed. The winner then filed a costs memo for $627.50 in appeals costs, prompting yet another appeal after

Scroll to Top