Trope

Trope v. Katz

Bad Law
11 Cal. 4th 274·1995 Cal. LEXIS 5384·45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 241·95 Daily Journal DAR 13193·902 P.2d 259
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 2, 1995S043227California7,805 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mosk, J.

In this appeal we consider whether an attorney who chooses to litigate in propria persona rather than retain another attorney to represent him in an action to enforce a contract containing an attorney fee provision can nevertheless recover “reasonable attorney’s fees” under Civil Code section 1717 (hereafter section 1717) as compensation for the time and effort expended and the professional business opportunities lost as a result. We shall conclude that such an attorney litigant cannot recover such fees under section 1717, and hence that the judgment of the Court of Appeal so holding must be affirmed. Were we to construe the statute otherwise, we would in effect create two separate classes of pro se litigants—those who are attorneys and those who are not—and grant different rights and remedies to each. We find no support for such disparate treatment either in the language of section 1717, in the legislative policy underlying it, or in fairness and logic.

Facts

In November 1985 defendant Bertram Bernard Katz retained the law firm of Trope & Trope to represent him in a marital dissolution proceeding. Their written agreement provided that “In the event it becomes necessary…

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.