Hobart

Hobart v. Decker

Good Law
188 Cal. App. 3d 1004·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1296·233 Cal. Rptr. 807
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 20, 1987No. B012138California5,726 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lui, J.

In this appeal, we address the question of an attorney’s right to a quantum meruit recovery of fees after the attorney has voluntarily withdrawn from a case and the case is subsequently settled. In deciding this appeal, we do not intend our opinion to apply to a related but different question regarding the circumstances in which an attorney has a right to withdraw from a case.

*1008 Factual and Procedural Background

Four sisters, Mahria Decker, Silvia McAbee, Lyn Reimholz and Lee Falcon (respondents) 1 entered into a contingency fee agreement with appellants G. Dana Hobart (Hobart) and the law firm of Oshman, Brownfield & Smith (Oshman) (collectively appellants) in September 1979 for the purpose of contesting the will of their deceased brother, John Falco (decedent). Appellants filed a petition for revocation of probate of purported will in December 1979, on behalf of the respondents. The decedent’s fifth sister, Virginia Vosburg, appeared in propria persona.

Inter alia, the decedent’s will bequeathed $2,000 to each of his five sisters, leaving the bulk of decedent’s estate to his friend and secretary Phyllis Werden. The value of the estate at the time of death in…

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.