Duchrow

Duchrow v. Forrest

Good Law
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 194·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 344·215 Cal. App. 4th 1359·2013 WL 1801682
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2013B233736California9,687 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mallano, J.

Plaintiff, an attorney, represented a client, also an attorney, in a prior civil suit against the client’s employer for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and other related claims. By motion, plaintiff withdrew from the case at the beginning of trial. The client could not find another attorney to represent her, and the trial court dismissed the suit.

In November 2008, plaintiff filed the present action, alleging that the client had breached the parties’ retainer agreement. The complaint alleged that, under paragraph 5 of the agreement, plaintiff was entitled to a “combined hourly and contingency based rate,” and under paragraph 7, he was entitled to costs. The complaint alleged that plaintiff “ha[d] been damaged in the sum of $44,082.22, plus interest.”

On March 8, 2011, the case was called for trial by jury. On March 9, 10, and 11, 2011, plaintiff presented evidence and then rested. On March 11, he moved to amend the complaint to conform to proof, seeking $312,260 in attorney fees and $16,851.95 in costs, for a total of $329,111.95. The amendment was based on a new theory of liability: Under paragraph 9 of the retainer agreement—which was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.