Legal Opinion

Cotton v. Kronenberg

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 22, 2002No. 47212-7-IPublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCox, J.

At issue is whether Donald Kronenberg breached his fiduciary duty to Harold Cotton, his former client, rendering unenforceable a written fee agreement between the two. We must also decide whether Kronenberg violated the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) in connection with that agreement.

Because counsel breached his fiduciary duties to his client, the fee agreement is unenforceable. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering disgorgement of all fees that Cotton paid. Thus, we affirm those portions of the summary judgment order in favor of Cotton. The public interest…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Berg v. HudesmanWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Mt. Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. TydingsWashington Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Cotton v. KronenbergCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  2. Behnke v. AhrensCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  3. Keck v. CollinsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  4. Holmes v. LovelessCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  5. Boes v. BisiarCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004

23 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