The Law Offices of Paul N. Philips v. Rudich CA2/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 17, 2022B305942California2,817 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

I. The Underlying Litigation and Fee Dispute

In 2013, Rudich introduced a high-profile client to Philips APLC to represent the client in a music copyright infringement case. Pursuant to a written agreement, Rudich and Philips APLC agreed to share legal fees earned from the litigation. After Philips APLC achieved a favorable result and substantial fee award, Rudich and Philips APLC disagreed over Rudich’s share of the fees. Rudich claimed he was entitled to 50 percent of the total fee award, while Philips APLC claimed Rudich was entitled to an amount proportionate to the number of hours worked. When Philips APLC refused to pay Rudich the disputed share of legal fees, Rudich allegedly made disparaging remarks about Philips APLC to the high-profile client involved in the litigation, and to Philips APLC’s former clients and other professionals in the

1 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. “SLAPP” is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation. (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1109 & fn. 1.)

2 entertainment industry. Rudich allegedly said: (1) Philips APLC holds,…

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.