Legal Opinion

Cheung v. Pena

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 2006No. 31371PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BURDICK, Justice.

Attorney Raymundo G. Pena (Pena) appeals to this Court from an Industrial Commission order requiring him to repay the entire sum of attorney fees paid to him by a former client, Respondent Leanne Cheung (Cheung). The Industrial Commission’s Order Regarding Declaratory Ruling concluded that Pena had not provided Cheung a fee disclosure statement as required by Commission rules, and ordered Pena to forfeit all attorney fees disbursed to him in his representation of Cheung. We affirm in part.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Cheung was driving her automobile between work sites…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bakker v. Thunder Spring-Wareham, LLCIdaho Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. PedersenIdaho Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Rhodes v. Industrial CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Combs v. Kelly LoggingIdaho Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Curr v. CurrIdaho Supreme Court · 1993

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gaylen Clayson v. Don ZebeIdaho Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Gray v. Tri-Way Construction Services, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. BallWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Duncan v. State Board of AccountancyIdaho Supreme Court · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API