Mazon v. Krafchick
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentSanders, J.
(dissenting) — The majority holds an attorney can never recover prospective fees from cocounsel. I disagree. Instead of focusing on the facts at hand, the majority seeks to prevent any possible conflict at any possible time in any possible case. Majority at 448-49 (fearing “potential conflicts of interest that harm the client’s interests may arise” (emphasis added)). It claims any liability between attorneys for prospective fees creates a fiduciary duty between attorneys, which might interfere with an attorney’s duty of loyalty to the client. The duty breached here, however, is the standard…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Banco Popular North America v. GandiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2005
- Hizey v. CarpenterWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Eastlake Construction Co. v. HessWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A.Arizona Supreme Court · 2001
- Beck v. WechtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.