Legal Opinion
Chambers v. Kay
California Supreme Court
Decided November 4, 2002No. S098007PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BAXTER, J.
This matter arises from a dispute between two attorneys over contingent fees generated from the successful prosecution of a client’s lawsuit against third parties. Rule 2-200(A)(l) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct (all further references to rules are to these rules), which this court approved to protect the public and to promote respect and confidence in the legal profession, provides in pertinent part that a member of the State Bar “shall not divide a fee for legal services with a lawyer who is not a partner of, associate of, or shareholder with the member…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Nelson v. AbrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Heppler v. J.M. Peters Co.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Weiner v. FleischmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Bank of California v. ConnollyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Brown v. GrimesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Huskinson & Brown, Limited Liability Partnership v. WolfCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & ShapiroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Donovan v. Poway Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- McIntosh v. MillsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.