Ringler

Barnes, Crosby, Fitzgerald & Zeman, LLP v. Ringler

Good Law
151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 134·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1290·212 Cal. App. 4th 172
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 19, 2012No. G045872California5,605 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ikola, J.

In class actions, an attorney’s agreement to share legal fees is governed by the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 2-200 (rule *174 2-200) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.769 (rule 3.769). Rule 2-200 permits an attorney to share legal fees with another lawyer only with the client’s informed, written consent. Rule 3.769 requires an applicant seeking court approval of a class action settlement to inform the court of any fee-sharing agreement.

In this case, we hold that an attorney may be equitably estopped from claiming that a fee-sharing contract is unenforceable due to noncompliance with rule 2-200 or rule 3.769, where that attorney is responsible for such noncompliance and has unfairly prevented another lawyer from complying with the rules’ mandates.

FACTS

The Complaint

Plaintiff Barnes, Crosby, Fitzgerald & Zeman, LLP, filed its operative complaint for declaratory relief against defendants Jerome L. Ringler, his law firm Ringler, Kearney & Alvarez, LLP (RKA), and McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP (M&M). The complaint alleged, inter alia, that in 2004 or 2005, plaintiff referred to Ringler a potential class action suit against RSM EquiCo, Inc.…

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.