Beard

Beard v. Goodrich

Bad Law
110 Cal. App. 4th 1031·2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 160·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1115·2003 Daily Journal DAR 8187·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6529
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 23, 2003A100618California3,253 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stein, J.

Attorney Terrance A. Beard appeals from a judgment resolving an attorney fee issue between Beard and his former client, Gary Goodrich.

We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On December 31, 1997, Goodrich, doing business as Antioch Alloy and Pacific Rims, Inc., was sued by his lessor, Michael H. Clement Corporation (Clement), who claimed that Goodrich had been discharging toxic waste materials on the leased premises. Clement sought damages of $1,024,333.65. Goodrich apparently took the position that Clement’s suit lacked merit, had been instituted in retaliation for Goodrich’s refusal to do business with Clement and was simply the last of a number of acts of harassment and retaliation. Goodrich hired Beard to defend him from Clement’s suit and to file a cross-complaint on his behalf against Clement. As relevant here, Goodrich and Beard agreed that Goodrich would pay Beard a retainer of $20,000, an amount that later was increased to $40,000. The remainder of their fee agreement was stated in the following language:

“Contingency Fee: Client agrees to pay Attorney a contingency fee of 40 percent of the total net recovery obtained by Client, less that portion of the retainer actually paid…

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.