Today is
Thursday, April 25, 2024 -
News Articles
Friday, May 24, 2019
Judge Eschews 'Khan Rule,' Focuses on Results in Attorney Fee Dispute
- State: California
- Topic: Top
- - Popular with: Legal
- - 8 shares
An administrative judge in Southern California eschewed a long-standing but informal rule used to di…
Purchase this story for only $7.99!
Add to CartFor access to all our articles, check out our subscription options.
Today’s News
- Calif. - Worker Gets Benefits for Crash Despite Leaving Job Site Without Employer's Approval Top 04/25/24
- N.Y. - Court Revives Labor Law Claim of Worker Who Fell Into Manhole NORTH 04/25/24
- Conn. - Notice of Intent to Contest Claim Must Be Delivered Within 28-Day Window NORTH 04/25/24
- W.Va. - Split Supreme Court Addresses Standard of Review, Burden of Proof for Apportionment SOUTH 04/25/24
- Calif. - Newsom Says Indoor Heat Safety Rules Too Expensive for Prisons WEST 04/25/24
- Colo. - Senate Passes Bill Prohibiting State From Forcing Workers to Quit as Settlement Condition WEST 04/25/24
- Okla. - Governor Signs Bill Allowing Electronic Cancellation Notices SOUTH 04/25/24
Advertisements
Now Trending
- Workers' Compensation News
-
Calif. DWC
Launches Portal for QME…
Posted on Apr 24, 2024Dr. Ron Perelman says: “The problem is that most QMEs are older docs. Many are semiretired.…”
-
Calif. DWC Updates
Time-of-Hire…
Posted on Apr 23, 2024
-
Calif. WCIRB
Approves Recommendation for 0.9%
Rate…
Posted on Apr 18, 2024
-
Calif. Committee
Passes Bill to Expand 4850…
Posted on Apr 22, 2024
-
Calif. Committee
Passes Bill to Revise Poster…
Posted on Apr 19, 2024
-
Calif.
Appropriations Committee Places TD
Bills on Suspense…
Posted on Apr 24, 2024
-
Calif. Cal/OSHA
Cites Construction Company $371,100
for Fatal Trench…
Posted on Apr 22, 2024
-
Ore. Worker Can
Request Examination if Carrier
Supports Claim Denial With IME…
Posted on Apr 22, 2024
-
Minn. Supreme
Court Upholds Award to Social
Worker for…
Posted on Apr 19, 2024
-
Ark. Worker Not
Entitled to Additional Benefits
After Date of…
Posted on Apr 22, 2024
Jobs
Upcoming Events
May 5-8, 2024
Risk World
Amplify Your Impact There’s no limit to what you can achieve when you join the global risk managem …
May 13-15, 2024
NCCI's Annual Insights Symposi
Join us May 13–15, 2024, for NCCI's Annual Insights Symposium (AIS) 2024, the industry’s premier e …
May 13-14, 2024
CSIA Announces the 2024 Annual
The Board of Managers is excited to announce that the CSIA 2024 Annual Meeting and Educational Con …
Social Media Links
WorkCompCentral
c/o Business Insurance Holdings, Inc.
c/o Business Insurance Holdings, Inc.
PO Box 1010
Greenwich, CT 06836
(805) 484-0333
Greenwich, CT 06836
5 Comments
Log in to post a comment
Marcie Donald May 24, 2019 a 1:05 pm PDT
Another excellent, well thought out decision by a judge that I have a great deal of respect for.
Juan Armenta May 24, 2019 a 1:52 pm PDT
Judge Khan, thank you for clarifying the purpose of the "rule". The judges in Riverside have used the formula exactly as Judge Khan reasoned-a starting point for prompting the showing the law requires: actual time expended (not just in inventory as that encourages inattention); skill deployed; risk undertaken; and, results obtained.
Too often the first firm, which does nothing to contribute to a substantial result obtained by the second firm, tries to hold the second firm hostage by delaying payment of the fee with an unreasonable demand. Hopefully, this article and any ensuing appeal will help break this practice for good.
When the first firm lets the file sit there with no significant development other than the fortuity of signing up the case because the client stumbled upon it via a Google search, it deserves minimal fees, if any. Awarding them any significant fee provides incentives for just signing up files and letting them sit without meaningful attention.
James Witkop May 24, 2019 a 2:59 pm PDT
One of the issues with this rule is that you are comparing the quality of the representation of the law firms and no attorney wants to admit they did little to advance the case and/or missed issues. I went through this exact issue on one of the few applicant cases I handled. After getting the client a 100% award I had to then negotiate the fee and specifically point out what the other attorney had missed. We settled but I get an icy stare every time I see him now. Nonetheless, clearly the quality of the representation should be the primary consideration when resolving see disputes, and especially a fee of this size.
Charles Cleveland May 24, 2019 a 2:05 pm PDT
This is a good decision and well reasoned. I've taken over files that were just warehoused, never met a lawyer, never spoke to a lawyer on the phone, somebody showed up at the applicant's house and pretty much nothing significant happens to advance the case. Whoever does the heavy lifting, actually meets with the applicant and gets things moving should get the majority of the fee. Many times whoever gets the result and completes everything needed for resolution, has the shorter amount of time with the file. Instead of rewarding the attorney who put the work in, the fees are held hostage at a distant venue by the first attorney. Very glad to see some clarification on this issue.
Ceasar Rodriguez May 24, 2019 a 2:05 pm PDT
The question is: How many attorneys/firms are going to be willing to clearly understand this and abide by it, as opposed to continue their approach that 'time held' is the same as 'work performed'.
Jack Goodchild May 24, 2019 a 6:05 pm PDT
It is regrettable that this decision wasn't appealed so that case law could be created. Good attorneys are indeed held hostage re their fees by prior law firms that did little but are wanting an easy windfall.