Because Client Had To Hire Appellate Attorneys Reversing The De Novo Trial Results, Client Was Awarded $334,458.11 In Fees/Costs—Affirmed By The Appellate Court.
Soni v. Cartograph, Inc., Case No. B316270 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 23, 2023) (unpublished) is quite a megillah of an arbitration/litigation odyssey about a client-attorney dispute over fees. Looks like the odyssey has finally come to a close.
Although the overall alleged fee delinquency was relatively small, client took attorney through a mandatory fee arbitration proceeding under the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA), resulting in a net award of $2.50 to attorney. Thirty-three days after service of the arbitration award, attorney filed a civil action against client seeking about $27,500. Attorney won that litigation, although only obtaining a $2,890 judgment, plus interest as well as fees and costs to be determined. Attorney requested $281,191.65 in contractual fees, with the lower court awarding $79,898. However, client appealed the judgment, and it was reversed on appeal because attorney failed to file its action within a 30-day deadline period, reversing a denial of client’s motion to confirm the award.
Upon remand, the lower court granted client’s petition to confirm the arbitration award. Both sides claimed to be prevailing parties, filing dueling fee motions. The trial judge found that client prevailed, awarding client $328,166.50 in fees under the MFAA, Business and Professions Code sections 6203 and 6204.
Attorney was miffed, appealing but obtaining no change in result. Client was the prevailing party under section 6203(c) because client successfully confirmed the arbitration award, notwithstanding the tortured history by which client finally got to this final reckoning. The appellate panel also rejected the argument that the language of the contractual fees provision governed, because the MFAA controlled over the parties’ contract provision. Finally, the amount of the award was no abuse of discretion, given appellate expertise was necessary and given client’s attorneys worked half as many hours as attorney’s attorneys.
Comments