Legal Opinion
Franklin v. Appel
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 6, 1992No. B044548PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KLEIN, P. J.
Plaintiffs, cross-defendants and appellants Bernard Franklin and Judith Franklin (the Franklins) appeal a judgment awarding $705,000 in damages to their former attorney, defendant, cross-complainant and respondent Eliezer Appel (Appel), in an action to recover attorney fees.
The central question presented is whether the Franklins may avoid their contingency fee agreement with Appel on the ground the contract lacked a statutory recital the fee was not set by law but was negotiable. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6147.) Said statute allows a client to void an agreement which fails to…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- California Teachers Ass'n v. San Diego Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Fracasse v. BrentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. RankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- California Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Oakdale Village Group v. FongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmilecareCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Srithong v. Total Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1994
- Chambers v. KayCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.