Sims

Sims v. Charness

Good Law
103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 619·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 61·2001 Daily Journal DAR 1111·86 Cal. App. 4th 884·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 900
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 2001B134267California3,590 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Defendant and appellant Fred M. Charness (Charness) appeals a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent James Christian Sims (Sims) following a court trial.

The essential issue presented is whether a fee-sharing agreement between Attorneys Charness and Sims amounted to a pure referral and thus was subject to rule 2-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, requiring written disclosure to, and written consent by, the client.

Rule 2-200 by its language is inapplicable where a member of the bar shares fees with a partner, associate, or fellow shareholder. (Rule 2-200(A).) However, a question remains as to the proper interpretation of the term “associate.” (Rule 2-200(A).) Based on our analysis, we conclude that where an outside lawyer functions “on a particular matter essentially on the same basis as an employee of the law office” (State Bar Formal Opn. No. 1994-138), the outside lawyer is an associate for purposes of rule 2-200, and no case referral is involved. On the facts herein, the outside lawyer, Sims, was an associate of Charness. Accordingly, the rule does not preclude Sims from enforcing the fee-sharing agreement, and the…

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.