Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Counsel Concerns

By Stan Soocher
November 30, 2015

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 But the court of appeal noted, in an unpublished opinion: “Although the [arbitrator's] Final Award [later revised] decided that [fee] issue against L & S, it provided that L & S was the prevailing party in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.”


Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance. His new book is Baby You're a Rich Man: Suing the Beatles for Fun & Profit (ForeEdge/University Press of New England). For more, visit www.stansoocher.com.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

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.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

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.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

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.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.