Mink

Mink v. MACCABEE

Bad Law
121 Cal. App. 4th 835·17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 486·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1348·2004 Daily Journal DAR 10155·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7508
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 17, 2004B166764California1,071 words

Opinion

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

This case involves two independent lawsuits: attorney Mink’s suit against attorney Maccabee for attorney fees pursuant to a retainer agreement, and Maccabee’s cross-complaint for an attorney referral fee in a separate matter. The cross-complaint was dismissed after the trial court sustained Mink’s demurrer, on the basis that the fee-splitting arrangement was not consented to by the client in accordance with rule 2-200 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 2-200). The attorney fees action was tried to a jury, which returned a special verdict concluding that Maccabee had not breached the contract, and awarding no damages. The trial court granted Mink’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and awarded Mink $9,718.97 in damages.

Maccabee appeals the ruling on the demurrer, arguing that the trial court misinterpreted Rule 2-200. He also appeals the judgment in the attorney fees action, contending that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We agree that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to Maccabee’s cross-complaint, but find that the court properly entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

1.…

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.