Bolinger

Severson & Werson v. Bolinger

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 531·1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1309·235 Cal. App. 3d 1569·91 Daily Journal DAR 14159·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9085
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 18, 1991A048793California1,337 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

—In this case we hold that when a law firm quotes specific hourly rates for the services of named attorneys to a prospective client who then agrees in writing to pay the firm’s “regular hourly rates,” the law firm cannot raise the rates charged by the named attorneys without first notifying the client.

Kenneth W. and Myra Sue Bolinger appeal from a judgment in favor of Severson & Werson (Severson), challenging both the amount of the judgment and the award of prejudgment interest, costs and attorney fees.

Between 1980 and 1984, Severson represented the Bolingers, their partners Robert and Darleen Smith, and Collection Computers, Inc., in litigation against Sperry Corporation under the terms of an August 28, 1980, fee agreement letter. In January 1985, Severson sued its former clients for $138,584.97 in unpaid fees. The defendants requested nonbinding arbitration (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.) which resulted in an award to Severson in the requested amount. The defendants rejected the award and requested a trial after arbitration (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6204, subd. (b)).

Before; the trial began, the Smiths settled with Severson for $50,000. On November 6, 1989, after a…

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.