Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mazon v. Krafchick

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 19, 2006No. 77398-0Published

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

  1. Banco Popular North America v. GandiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2005
  2. Hizey v. CarpenterWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Eastlake Construction Co. v. HessWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A.Arizona Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Beck v. WechtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API