Brown v. Grimes
California Court of Appeal
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
- Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Ghirardo v. AntonioliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 2007
- Winet v. PriceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del ReyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Plotnik v. MeihausCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Jade Fashion & Co. v. Harkham Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Jaramillo v. County of OrangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Scripsamerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Global LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2014
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.