Douglas

Saltarelli & Steponovich v. Douglas

Bad Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1107·40 Cal. App. 4th 1·46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 683·95 Daily Journal DAR 15121·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8751
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 14, 1995G014782California1,895 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

Plaintiff Saltarelli & Steponovich, a law firm, appeals from an order dismissing its action against Peter J. Douglas, a former client. The primary question presented is whether plaintiff’s contractual lien on defendant’s prospective recovery in the lawsuit for which the firm had been retained to represent defendant survived defendant’s discharge in bankruptcy. We hold it does.

Facts

Defendant retained plaintiff to represent him in a suit seeking damages for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud and breach of contract entitled Douglas v. Weiner (Super. Ct. Orange County, 1988, No. 559656) (Weiner action). The parties signed an hourly retainer agreement which provided plaintiff “shall have a Lien for . . . fees and costs against any settlement, judgment, or compromise obtained in this matter” if it withdrew from the case. While the Weiner action was pending, plaintiff withdrew as defendant’s attorney of record, claiming the latter had failed to pay fees and costs. Plaintiff then commenced this action, alleging defendant owed over $31,000 on account of these fees and costs.

Shortly thereafter, defendant filed a petition for bankruptcy. He listed plaintiff as an unsecured…

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.