Legal Opinion

Brown v. Grimes

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 27, 2011No. B216650PublishedCited by 61 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK, J.

INTRODUCTION

For the following three reasons, the trial court refused to enforce a fee-sharing agreement between lawyers—plaintiff James L. Brown and *269defendant Milton C. Grimes—arising out of cases they handled in Texas: Brown had not performed his contractual responsibility to pay Paul Ross, a third party; Brown had unclean hands because he had unethically agreed to share his fees with Ross, a former lawyer who had resigned from the bar; and the fee-sharing agreement violated applicable Texas law because the clients did not consent to the arrangement at the outset of the…

2Cases cited56 opinions

  1. Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Ghirardo v. AntonioliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Winet v. PriceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007

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

3Cited by61 opinions

  1. Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del ReyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  2. Plotnik v. MeihausCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  3. Jade Fashion & Co. v. Harkham Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2014
  4. Jaramillo v. County of OrangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. Scripsamerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Global LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2014

56 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