Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Counsel Concerns
Entertainment Client Can't Recoup Costs of Winning Appeal over Fee Dispute with Lavely & Singer Law Firm
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, decided that law client Jeffrey Cooper's successful appeal of an arbitrator's revised legal fee award to the law firm Lavely & Singer ' in a dispute over the firm's unsuccessful representation of Cooper in a dispute with a production company ' didn't justify an award to Cooper for the costs of his appeal. Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Professional Corp., B261936. Cooper had accused the firm of professional negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. An arbitrator overseeing the attorney/client dispute ruled for the firm on the allegations, denied it legal fees for representing itself in the arbitration with Cooper, but later revised the ruling to award Lavely & Singer $225,677 in fees. Last year, the court of appeal reversed the arbitrator's fee award. Cooper then sought the costs of his appeal, pointing to his earlier Lavely & Singer retainer agreement, which allowed “the prevailing party” in “'any ' controversy' between the [client and law firm] to recover fees incurred in connection with the 'controversy.'” California Civil Code '1717(a) states: “In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract ' shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs.” But the court of appeal noted, in an unpublished opinion: “Although the [arbitrator's] Final Award [later revised] decided that [fee] issue against L & S, it provided that L & S was the prevailing party in the arbitration, as did the revised final award, which authorized a fee award. Accordingly, within the arbitration, L & S's fee motion initiated no discrete 'action on a contract' in which Cooper was the prevailing party.”
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.