Legal Opinion
Richards, Watson & Gershon v. King
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 31, 1995No. B087622PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GODOY PEREZ, J.
In this appeal we decide whether dismissal is mandatory or discretionary under Business and Professions Code section 6201, subdivision (a), for a lawsuit filed by an attorney against a client to recover fees if the attorney fails to give notice of the client’s right to arbitration. The trial court concluded dismissal was mandatory. Because we conclude that dismissal is discretionary, we reverse.
Factual and Procedural Background
Appellant Richards, Watson & Gershon, a Los Angeles law firm (hereafter appellant), represented Sidney King before his death in February 1993.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Merrill v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg, & Tunney v. LawrenceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Los Angeles County Safety Police Ass'n v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Gardner v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Aheroni v. MaxwellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Sunset Drive Corp. v. City of RedlandsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. PoleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. ValleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Sharples v. SharplesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Austin v. ValverdeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.