Earle & Reimer APC v. Klimek CA6

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. ACTION FOR LEGAL FEES

Plaintiffs represented Klimek in a complex marital dissolution until January 2011, when Klimek terminated Reimer’s services and engaged other counsel. In 2012, Klimek was awarded more than $200,000 in a fee arbitration against Plaintiffs in a dispute over unpaid attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs rejected the arbitration award and filed this action for trial de novo. The complaint alleged $32,480 in unpaid fees. Klimek raised affirmative defenses in answer to the complaint. Klimek also cross-complained against Plaintiffs and Janice Earle for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged overbilling. Earle was never served and did not appear in the action. Earle & Reimer served Klimek on March 15, 2013, with a first set of 24 special interrogatories composed primarily of contention interrogatories that asked Klimek to identify any factual support for the affirmative defenses and allegations in his cross- complaint. Klimek responded to each interrogatory by stating, “the answer may be derived or ascertained from [Klimek]’s client file and, . . . submissions” in the arbitration action, “all of which are…