Levin

Levin v. Graham & James

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 765·37 Cal. App. 4th 798·44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 69·44 Cal. Rptr. 69·95 Daily Journal DAR 10284
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 10, 1995A066278California2,762 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

In this case we hold an allegation that, among other breaches of professional duty, a lawyer charged a client excessive, unreasonable or unconscionable fees for professional services does not take the action outside the one-year statute of limitations for wrongful acts or omissions by an attorney in the performance of professional services. As to such a claim, we further hold the statute is not tolled until the client actually pays the fees, but begins to run, as with any other allegation of an attorney’s negligence or misconduct, except actual fraud, when the client knows or should have known the facts constituting the alleged overcharge.

Daniel Levin appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Attorney William Falik and the law firms of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson & Falk (Howard Rice) and Miller, Starr & Regalia (Miller Starr). With his attorney, Nicholas Damer, Levin also appeals from a related award of sanctions.

In 1989, Howard Rice attorney William Falik performed legal work for Levin, managing director of Praxis Development Group, which included drafting a proposed land sale initiative for the November 1990 Redwood City ballot. In November 1989,…

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.