Scolinos

Scolinos v. Kolts

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 752·37 Cal. App. 4th 635·44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 31·44 Cal. Rptr. 31·95 Daily Journal DAR 10639
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 7, 1995B077734California1,645 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Plaintiff and appellant Harry Frank Scolinos (Scolinos) appeals a judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and respondents Raymond G. Kolts, Kathleen Landgraf Kolts and Kolts & Nawa, attorneys at law (collectively, defendants).

Because it is uncontroverted there was a failure by the parties to comply with the ethical rules pertaining to fee-splitting agreements, Scolinos is barred from recovering against defendants for the alleged referral. The judgment therefore is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

Joan Howard (Howard), who is not a party to this appeal, allegedly was referred by Attorney Scolinos to defendants, who represented her in a wrongful termination action against her former employer. Defendants obtained a $390,000 settlement for Howard and received over $90,000 in attorney fees. Scolinos then brought this breach of contract action against defendants to recover a referral fee.

The operative first amended complaint alleged that in May 1988, Scolinos and defendants entered into an oral agreement whereby Scolinos agreed to refer Howard to defendants’ law offices and defendants agreed to pay Scolinos a referral fee in 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.