-
We all like our lawyer, until we have to pay the bill. Then we start thinking, "Wow, how am I ever going to pay this?" "Why is she charging me for this?" A lawyer is not supposed to surprise you by their fees. The lawyer is required to tell you how much you are going to be charged and for what. Usually, this is reduced to a written contract between you and your lawyer in a Retainer Agreement. Nevertheless, problems arise. There are a variety of ways to deal with these kinds of problems.
There are numerous enforcement mechanisms present in the [court rules], available to the claimant, which do not make the defendant a 'prisoner' in the United States unable to return to her native country, "Civil Court Judge Philip S. Straniere wrote in Bonner v. [Chandrani Goonewardene]. "Claimant is in...
-
A Nevada law firm cannot be compelled to arbitrate a fee dispute based on an arbitration clause in the retainer agreement between its client and an affiliated California firm, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled in denying a motion to compel arbitration. The client was an insurer that retained a California law to provide services in that state pursuant to several agreements that all included a mandatory arbitration provision.
The client then entered into an oral agreement with one of the firm's principal attorneys to provide similar services in Nevada. The attorney established a Nevada law firm to provide those services.
-
The proper process to dispute a fee between a client and her former attorney was the subject of a recent case before a Rochester City Court judge.
In Donna M. Borgus v. Donna Marianetti, Judge Ellen Yacknin was asked to determine whether the fees sought by an attorney were reasonable. Specifically, the judge was called upon to review the Fee Dispute Resolution Program procedures and the program's applicability to the case at hand.
-
CIVIL LAW - attorney fees; fee dispute between lawyers in different firms; arbitration.
-
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The California Supreme Court has been considering an unprecedented Petition For Review of a Santa Monica Small Claims Court case since November 23, 2011. The case started in the courtroom of Judge Lawrence Cho in January 2011 and involves an attorney fee dispute between Donald Zachary, the former Vice President of NBC News, Legal Affairs in Los Angeles and American Association of Women (AAW), the parent organization of the Full Disclosure Network(R), a non- profit, cable and Internet television program. View the eleven page Supreme Court Petition filed under case Number S198189 at this URL: http://fulldisclosure.net/Documents/ CASupremeCourtPetitionForReview11-22-11.pdf
AAW Contends Judge Cho Was Disqualified From Hearing The Case:
-
The probate court properly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to resolve a fee-sharing dispute among attorney to the fee-sharing agreement and properly referred it to the OSBA for mediation or arbitration pursuant to DR 2-107(A).
-
A jury awarded a client $250,000 in a successful employment discrimination suit against the California Highway Patrol, and the court ultimately awarde...
-
A lawyer used his anticipated attorney fees from a lawsuit against Prudential Insurance Co. as collateral for a $10 million- plus loan that he still owes, according to papers filed in state Superior Court in Hackensack.
The attorney, Stephen Snyder of Baltimore, dismissed the allegation as a fee dispute that he said is "90 percent resolved.
-
Attorney-Client Fee Dispute
-
- Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Gerald Maltman, Plaintiff, Michael E. Mcgill, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant, E.J. Leizerman, Attorney-Appellee, v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, Defendant., 993 F.2d 1547 (6th Cir. 1993)
... he had jurisdiction over the attorney fee dispute and did not abuse his discretion in reasserting ju...