Legal Opinion
Liska v. the Arns Law Firm
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 30, 2004No. A102926PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
POLLAK, J.
May a chent who loses a binding fee arbitration conducted pursuant to the mandatory fee arbitration statute (MFA), Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq., 1 file a subsequent action against the attorney predicated on the same allegations of misconduct or breach of contract that formed the basis of the fee dispute? We hold that the chent may do so, but that the chent may not seek to recover as damages any portion of the fee that the arbitrators awarded the attorney.
Plaintiff George Liska hired the defendant law firm to represent him in a personal injury products…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Vandenberg v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Kirkpatrick v. James M.California Supreme Court · 1973
- Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg, & Tunney v. LawrenceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. CareyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Perez v. GrajalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. ValleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Urban Habitat Program v. City of PleasantonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Tarkington v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Giorgianni v. CrowleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.