Isrin

This matter is before us on a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the respondent court to make an order allowing petitioner to prosecute a pending civil action without prepayment of jury fees. The choice of rem *155 edy is proper. (Martin v. Superior Court (1917) 176 Cal. 289 [ 168 P. 135 , L.R.A. 1918B 313 ].)

The issue presented is whether an indigent plaintiff should be denied the right to proceed in forma pauperis on the sole ground that his or her attorney, who is presumably solvent, is acting under a contingent fee contract. The question is one of first impression in this court, but the District Court of Appeal has held in Gomez v. Superior Court (1933) 134 Cal. App. 19 [ 24 P.2d 856 ], that the attorney’s contingent interest in the litigation is sufficient to bar his client from suing in forma pauperis. As will appear, we have concluded that the Gomes rule is supported neither by sound reasoning nor by authority, and hence should be disapproved and a contrary rule declared.

The County of Los Angeles, as real party in interest, entered a general demurrer to the petition for mandate; for our purposes, therefore, the facts alleged by petitioner are deemed to be true.…