Argaman

In Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 241 , 902 P.2d 259 ], the Supreme Court held that an attorney who litigates in proprio persona in an action to enforce a contract containing an attorney’s fee provision may not recover “reasonable attorney’s fees” under Civil Code section 1717 as compensation for the time and effort expended and the professional business opportunities lost as a result. ( 11 Cal.4th at p. 277 .) In accord with the rationale of Trope , we conclude that an attorney who litigates in proprio persona may not be awarded a monetary discovery sanction under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030, subdivision (Z) and 2023, subdivision (b)(1), based on compensation for the time and effort expended as a result of a misuse of the discovery process. Accordingly, we reduce the sanctions award of the trial court by the amount based on compensation for the attorney litigant’s time and affirm the order as modified.

Facts and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Nissim Argaman is an attorney. In 1981, Argaman filed a complaint in proprio persona against several parties, including defendant Ram Ratan. In May 1990, Argaman entered into a settlement agreement…