Legal Opinion

Fletcher v. Davis

California Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 2004No. S114715PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAXTER, J.

When an attorney wishes to secure payment of hourly legal fees and costs of litigation by obtaining a charging lien against a client’s future recovery, must the attorney obtain the client’s consent in writing? We conclude that rule 3-300 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California (rule 3-300), which requires the client’s informed written consent to the attorney’s acquisition of an interest adverse to the client, applies to such a transaction and therefore reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Background

Because this case reaches us after…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Goodrich v. . McDonaldNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Isrin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Cetenko v. United California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Chambers v. KayCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Litman v. FINE, JACOBSON, SCHWARTZDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. HyonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Fair v. BakhtiariCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. Fergus v. SongerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. Plummer v. Day/Eisenberg, LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Arnall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010

19 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