Rees

Rees v. Laubscher CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 9, 2013B237529California3,078 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

Parties Rees and Laubscher are both attorneys who were “of counsel” to Daar & Newman, a professional law corporation (Daar & Newman). In 1999, Rees began providing legal services on client matters originated by Laubscher. The client matters included both hourly and contingent fee work, and Laubscher paid Rees a portion of the fees collected from these clients. A dispute arose between the parties in connection with Laubscher’s payments to Rees for work performed on certain contingent fee matters, including a matter for a client named Grand Sprinkler Supply, Inc. (Grand Sprinkler). Complaint On December 11, 2006, Rees filed a verified complaint against Laubscher for breach of contract and for dissolution of partnership and an accounting. In his first cause of action for breach of contract, Rees alleged that he and Laubscher entered into an agreement to represent clients through Daar & Newman on a contingency fee basis and to divide recoveries on client matters between them on a pro rata basis according to hours worked on the matter, after payment of unreimbursed costs and a 12.5 percent fee to the attorney originating the work. Rees further alleged Laubscher owed him…

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.