Franklin

Franklin v. Appel

Good Law
10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 759·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 978·8 Cal. App. 4th 875·92 Daily Journal DAR 11017·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6901
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 6, 1992B044548California6,838 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Plaintiffs, cross-defendants and appellants Bernard Franklin and Judith Franklin (the Franklins) appeal a judgment awarding $705,000 in damages to their former attorney, defendant, cross-complainant and respondent Eliezer Appel (Appel), in an action to recover attorney fees.

The central question presented is whether the Franklins may avoid their contingency fee agreement with Appel on the ground the contract lacked a statutory recital the fee was not set by law but was negotiable. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6147.) Said statute allows a client to void an agreement which fails to comply with its requirements.

We conclude section 6147 is inapplicable because it only applies to contingency fee agreements involving plaintiffs in litigation matters, rather than to all contingency fee arrangements. Accordingly, the Franklins cannot assert the lack of the prescribed recital to avoid the contract. Because the fee agreement is not voidable, we uphold the trial court’s decision which awarded Appel his full attorney fees, albeit in quantum meruit, rather than on the contract.

Factual and Procedural Background

1. Prior representation.

Appel had represented the Franklins in 1980-1981…

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.