Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Persson v. Smart Inventions, Inc.green1 sentence2014(Persson v. Smart Inventions, Inc. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1173, 1175-1176 .) VI ADDITIONAL REASONS ASSERTED FOR DENYING ATTORNEY FEES The County asserts the trial court should not have awarded plaintiffs attorney fees for the Roths’ legal services on the following additional grounds: (1) Andrew abandoned plaintiffs; (2) allowing plaintiffs to retain the proceeds of an attorney fees award, in addition to judgment damages, confers on plaintiffs an unjustified windfall; (3) the 24 contingency fee agreement violates Rules of Professional Conduct rule 1-320,5 which prohibits splitting fees wi | 1 | 1 |
Larimer v. Smithgreen2 sentences1978Code, § 6068, subd. (c).) “When an attorney *310 loses faith in his cause he should either retire from the case or dismiss the action.” (Larimer v. Smith (1933) 130 Cal.App. 98, 101 [ 19 P.2d 825 ].) Rules of Professional Conduct rule 2-110(2) provides that a member of the State Bar shall not accept employment to present “a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Rule 2-111(C) provides for permissive withdrawal when the client insists upon presenting 1978Code, § 6068, subd. (c).) “When an attorney *310 loses faith in his cause he should either retire from the case or dismiss the action.” (Larimer v. Smith (1933) 130 Cal.App. 98, 101 [ 19 P.2d 825 ].) Rules of Professional Conduct rule 2-110(2) provides that a member of the State Bar shall not accept employment to present “a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Rule 2-111(C) provides for permissive withdrawal when the client insists upon presenting | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People ex rel. Herrera v. Stender
green
1 sentence2023Herrera v. Stender (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 614, 633 , which stands for the unexceptional proposition that a UCL claim can be based on violation of a professional conduct rule. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bernstein v. State Bar
green
1 sentence2016(Bernstein v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 221, 232 ; Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 612, 621-622 .) Moreover, where failure to return a client’s file results in damages to the client, the attorney may incur civil liability for malpractice. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Rosenthal v. State Bar
green
1 sentence2016(Bernstein v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 221, 232 ; Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 612, 621-622 .) Moreover, where failure to return a client’s file results in damages to the client, the attorney may incur civil liability for malpractice. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Purdy v. Pacific Automobile Insurance
green
1 sentence1984California Rules of Professional Conduct rule 5-102(B) states: “A member of the State Bar shall not represent conflicting interests, except with the written consent of all parties concerned.” *373 In Purdy v. Pacific Automobile Insurance Co., supra, 157 Cal.App.3d 59 , the plaintiff offered to settle his third party action within policy limits under circumstances where counsel retained by the insurer knew an excess verdict was probable. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.