McIntosh

McIntosh v. Mills

Good Law
121 Cal. App. 4th 333·17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1268·2004 Daily Journal DAR 9468·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6992
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 3, 2004A101673California7,212 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

L

INTRODUCTION

Appellant J. Nicholas McIntosh appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of respondent Robert W. Mills (Mills). The trial court granted Mills’s summary judgment after concluding, as a matter of law, that an alleged agreement to share a legal fee (the fee-sharing agreement) entered into between Mills, a member of the State Bar of California, and McIntosh, a nonattomey, was unenforceable. In reviewing the matter de novo, we agree that the fee-sharing agreement was unenforceable under the doctrine of illegality of contract. Further, we conclude that no exception to the general rule of unenforceability applies in that the parties were in pari delicto as a matter of law because (1) McIntosh was represented by counsel, Attorney David Anton, who also negotiated and entered into the fee-sharing agreement on McIntosh’s behalf, and (2) McIntosh is equally as blameworthy as Mills.

II.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In the underlying complaint, McIntosh filed a single cause of action against Mills for breach of contract, alleging that Mills failed and refused to honor an agreement to share attorney fees with McIntosh. No other legal or equitable causes of action…

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.