Fletcher v. Davis
California Supreme Court
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
- Goodrich v. . McDonaldNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Isrin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- Cetenko v. United California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Chambers v. KayCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Litman v. FINE, JACOBSON, SCHWARTZDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. HyonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Fair v. BakhtiariCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Fergus v. SongerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Plummer v. Day/Eisenberg, LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Arnall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.