Purchase this story for only $7.99!
Add to CartFor access to all our articles, check out our subscription options.
Jul 29 – Aug 2, 2024
SAVE THE DATE! 76th Annual SAWCA Convention July 29 August 2, 2024 Hotel Effie Sandestin 1 Grand …
Aug 14-17, 2024
California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery (CSIMS) is combining its two conferences, PI …
Sep 23-26, 2024
The IAIABC invites you to the IAIABC 110th Convention, "Passport to Solutions". The IAIABC Convent …
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.