DeRose

DeRose v. Heurlin

Bad Law
100 Cal. App. 4th 158·122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 630·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4404·2002 Daily Journal DAR 7929·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6366
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 16, 2002G028450California8,533 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

Introduction

On our own motion we impose sanctions against Attorney John M. Heurlin and his law firm (Heurlin) for filing and prosecuting a frivolous appeal. We conclude Heurlin had improper motives in seeking (1) to delay the effects of an adverse judgment and (2) to cover up his mishandling of client trust funds and his dishonesty before the trial court. Heurlin compounded the deception at oral argument after notice of this court’s consideration of sanctions against him. He was inexcusably unable or unwilling to respond forthrightly to our questions regarding his conduct.

Procedural History

The case arises out of an attorney fees dispute between Heurlin and his former client, Michael DeRose. At the heart of the matter is Heurlin’s handling of funds he agreed to hold in trust after DeRose’s new attorneys obtained a settlement of a dental malpractice case on DeRose’s behalf.

There was a series of motions, hearings, and rulings relating to DeRose’s statutory offer to compromise, Heurlin’s acceptance, and the parties’ attempts to obtain entry of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 judgment. (All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless…

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.