Law Offices of Marc Grossman v. Victor Elem. Sch. Dist., No. E059579 (D4d2 Jul. 21, 2015)
Generally speaking, an attorney representing himself pro se is not entitled a statutory or contractual award of attorney fees for his time spent successfully litigating a case. Here, an attorney named himself as plaintiff in a Public Records Act case that brought to obtain information for use in parallel tort case the attorney’s client had brought against a school.
It doesn’t really matter who the plaintiff is in a PRA case and attorneys sometimes name themselves as plaintiffs for administrative convenience. After he won the PRA case on a writ reversing the trial court, on remand the trial court denied him a fee award under Gov’t Code § 6259(d) under the attorney pro se rule. The court of appeal reverses. Acting as if the client wasn’t actually representing the interests of his client in the PRA case would elevate form over substance. Moreover, the writ already said that the attorney was entitled to an award of both costs and fees and the trial court should have followed the order.
Reversed.
Monday, August 3, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's Not a Debate
Taylor v. Tesla , No. A168333 (D1d4 Aug. 8, 2024) Plaintiffs in this case are also members of a class in a race discrimination class action ...
-
RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi , No. A143781 (D1d3 Sept. 29, 2017) In this real estate warranty case, the court affirms a summary judgment in ...
-
Pollock v. Superior Court , No. B321229 (D2d1 Jul. 31, 2023) Back in 2019, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 to inc...
No comments:
Post a Comment