Rosen

Rosen v. Century Law Group CA2/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 16, 2022B309991California1,601 words

Opinion

Opinion

Currey, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants and appellants Century Law Group (CLG) and Edward Lear (Lear) (collectively, CLG) appeal from an order denying their motion for attorneys’ fees. CLG contends the trial court erred in denying its motion because: (1) the retainer agreement between CLG and plaintiff and respondent Jonathan Rosen (Rosen) contains a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision; and (2) that CLG was represented by an attorney who was “of counsel” for CLG does not preclude an award of attorneys’ fees under Civil Code section 1717. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In September 2015, Rosen retained CLG to defend him in a legal malpractice lawsuit. The retainer agreement between CLG and Rosen contained an attorneys’ fees clause, which provided: “If any action at law or in equity, in court or in arbitration, is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Retainer Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees (including fees for services rendered by our law firm’s attorneys, waiving any contrary holding in Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274)[1] incurred by our law firm, costs and necessary…

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.