Whether unlicensed California attorney can recover fees for work performed while licensed?

Can an unlicensed California attorney recover for work he performed while licensed on a case which another California licensed attorney took over without the initial attorney's knowledge? In 2006, the first attorney lost his law license and the case is still active. If so, would the initial attorney be able to recover his fees and costs incurred under quantum merit or some other legal theory? Rule 1-320 does not address this question. Thanks. - Is this your question? Add additional information
Answer this question Add to list

Answers (2)

David Alexander Phipps

David Alexander Phipps

Contributor Level 5
The former attorney can pursue the claim for quantum meruit or any other legal theory that might apply. Disbarment does not include forfieture of fees earned or lien rights.

This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted here: http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com . And I am not your attorney.

David
0 0
Gerald Gould Knapton

Gerald Gould Knapton

Contributor Level 5
Asuming that the 1st lawyer was licensed when he/she did the legal work and the client did ask the 1st lawyer to do the work then the 1st lawyer can recover the reasonable value for his/her services even though he/she is not licensed now--if the claim is not more than 2 years old.

Most of us (CA lawyers) were quite surprised when the Cal. Supreme Court filed its opinion in Chambers v. Kay which held that agreements between lawyers to share the fee paid by the client had to be signed by the client. Some of us had felt that since the fees to the client were NOT increased by this referral or sharing practice the division was something that was only between the lawyers so the client need not give written consent. Not so, said Chambers v. Kay. Since then focus has shifted to the quantum meruit (reasonable value) legal theory and the courts have upheld this theory in suits by one attorney against another attorney.

Recently (9/19/08) an opinion was filed & published in Strong v Beydoun, G039758, which refused to allow a quantum meruit theory against a CLIENT when the client did not ask the attorney to do work for them or did not agree to pay the lawyer. You should read this opinion.

The earlier Birbrower opinion settled the question of the need for a California license-- (it is required!) but it requires a license at the time the services were provided.

A claim for quantum meruit has a two year statute of limitations so this might be a time barred claim.
Assuming that the claim is timely then the final question will be how much work the attorney did and whether or not it was a reasonable amount of time for the work performed. See Fergus v Songer for the elements of a quantum meruit claim.

The 2nd attorney will probably have some useful ideas about the usefulness of the 1st lawyer's work.

Remember that the client has the right to demand Mandatory Fee Arbitration in either a local bar or the State Bar program and this is a consumer friendly forum.
0 0
Back to Search Results

Ask a Question

Get free answers from real lawyers.

Motorcycle Accident Resources