Casello & Lincoln v. Tong CA4/3

FACTS

As explained in Casello & Lincoln v. Tong (June 25, 2010, G041271 [nonpub. opn.] (Casello I), “this is a debt collection case. The debt in question arose out of [Tong‟s] retention of, in early 2007, the law firm of Casello & Lincoln to defend her in two Los Angeles cases . . . . In late 2007, Casello & Lincoln filed this action against Tong for the unpaid balance of their fees, about $82,000. Tong, then represented by counsel . . . , responded in January 2008 with a cross-complaint for legal malpractice, the basic theories being that the firm overbilled for their work and dismissed claims against certain defendants . . . that they should not have.” In Casello I, we reversed a 2008 judgment in Casello & Lincoln‟s favor because the trial court abused its discretion by not granting a continuance to Tong to allow her time to recover her legal file from an

1 Judgment was entered in favor of Casello & Lincoln in the amount of $12,518.68 after the court took into account costs, interest, and amounts already collected by Casello pursuant to a prior judgment that was subsequently reversed.

2 attorney who was arrested just before the trial began. We refer the parties to Casello I…