Clements

Appeal by defendants from a judgment and order denying a new trial.

The action was on account of an attorney’s fee for services rendered by plaintiff’s assignor to defendants. The case was tried by a jury, which rendered a verdict in plaintiff’s favor. Several months before the trial defendants demanded a bill of particulars, which was furnished by plaintiff, and contained, among other items, the item: “Retainer, seven months at $100 per month, $700.” No demand was made for a further bill, and upon the trial the court permitted plaintiff to prove certain services rendered defendants which were included in said item. This is assigned as error. “In estimating the value of an attorney’s services it is proper to include in the consideration a reasonable retaining fee.” (Roche v. Baldwin, 143 Cal. 192 , [ 76 Pac. 956 ].) While the performance of actual services may. not be essential in order that a retaining fee may be recovered (Knight v. Russ, 77 Cal. 413 , [ 19 Pac. 698 ]), it certainly cannot prejudice defendant to show that upon the faith of such retainer certain specific sendees were rendered for which he was not otherwise paid, and for which he made no other charge. And, in…