Chodos v. Borman, No. B260326 (D2d5 August 18, 2015)
This is an appeal after remand of this case, where the court of appeal modified a judgment in a quantum meruit case because the trial court for permitted the jury to include a lodestar multiplier when calculating an attorney’s fees owed by his former client. The question on this second appeal is: From when and for how much does post-judgment interest run? The court holds that because the prior appeal only reduced the amount of the judgment, but did not reverse it on the merits, post-judgment interest should run from the date of the original judgment, but in the modified amount.
Reversed.
FWIW, this is the 400th post on this blog. Thanks to our readers for all your support!
Showing posts with label borman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label borman. Show all posts
Friday, September 4, 2015
Monday, June 23, 2014
Quantum Meruit for Attorney Can't Include a Lodestar Multplier
Chodos v. Borman, No. B252446 (D2d5 as modified, July 9, 2014)
An attorney sues his client to collect fees for representations in two divorce cases and a Marvin action. But, contrary to Business & Processions Code §§ 6147 and 6148, he never got a signed agreement. That limits him to quantum merit. After trial, the jury found that the attorney had done 1,800 hours of work and that his reasonable rate was $1,000 an hour. It then, as permitted by the court’s instructions, applied a lodestar multiple of five, ultimately awarding $7.8 million. The court here reverses, finding that a lodestar multiplier cannot be applied in awarding an attorney quantum meruit for services performed without a written fee agreement. To do so could reward attorneys for breaching their ethical obligations to get client fee agreements in writing.
Reversed.
An attorney sues his client to collect fees for representations in two divorce cases and a Marvin action. But, contrary to Business & Processions Code §§ 6147 and 6148, he never got a signed agreement. That limits him to quantum merit. After trial, the jury found that the attorney had done 1,800 hours of work and that his reasonable rate was $1,000 an hour. It then, as permitted by the court’s instructions, applied a lodestar multiple of five, ultimately awarding $7.8 million. The court here reverses, finding that a lodestar multiplier cannot be applied in awarding an attorney quantum meruit for services performed without a written fee agreement. To do so could reward attorneys for breaching their ethical obligations to get client fee agreements in writing.
Reversed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (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 ...
-
Pollock v. Superior Court , No. B321229 (D2d1 Jul. 31, 2023) Back in 2019, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 to inc...
-
RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi , No. A143781 (D1d3 Sept. 29, 2017) In this real estate warranty case, the court affirms a summary judgment in ...