Shepherd

Shepherd v. Greene

Good Law
185 Cal. App. 3d 989·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2055·230 Cal. Rptr. 233
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 23, 1986B015653California1,705 words

Opinion

Opinion

Eagleson, J.

The main issue here is whether an aggrieved party’s request for trial after arbitration tolls the time period allowed to the prevailing party to seek correction and confirmation of a State Bar arbitration award. We hold that it does and affirm the trial court judgment.

Facts and Procedural Background

Judith and Richard Shepherd (Shepherd) were referred by their attorney, Needle, to Browne Greene, Greene, O’Reilly, Broillet, Paul, Simon, McMillan, Wheeler & Rosenberg (Greene), attorneys at law. Greene filed a medical malpractice action against Kaiser Permanente Health Plan on behalf of Shepherd. Prior to suit, Shepherd agreed, in writing, to compensate Greene for professional services in the sum of 40 percent of any recovery obtained, plus a sum equal to expenses incurred by Greene in the preparation of the case.

The matter was ultimately settled before trial for $650,000. Before distribution of these funds, Needle, now representing Shepherd in what was to become a fee dispute with Greene, wrote Greene and advised him that his proposed 40 percent fee of $260,000 contravened Business and Professions Code section 6146. ,

Shepherd and Greene could not agree on the proper…

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.