Legal Opinion
Hensel v. Cohen
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 8, 1984No. B001242PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FEINERMAN, P. J.
May an attorney accept a personal injury case on a contingent’fee basis, determine that it is not worth his time to pursue the matter, instruct his client to look elsewhere for legal assistance, but hedge his bet by claiming a part of the recovery if a settlement is made or a judgment obtained through the efforts of a subsequent attorney? We answer this question with a resounding “No.” Thus, we affirm the trial court’s holding that the firm of Cohen & Steinbrecher (Cohen) holds no lien against any recovery which Bruce Hensel (Hensel), their former client, may…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Fracasse v. BrentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Weiss v. MarcusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Kirsch v. DuryeaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Salopek v. SchoemannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Estate of RaphaelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Estate of FalcoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Joseph E. Di Loreto, Inc. v. O'NEILLCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Elliott v. JoyceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
- Ausler v. RamseyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994
- Ramirez v. SturdevantCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.