Kraft v. Gordon
Filed 8/2/06 Kraft v. Gordon CA2/3
Opinion after rehearing
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| MARCIA L. KRAFT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIA DEL CARMEN GORDON, Defendant and Appellant. | B178157 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC062912) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard Wolfe, Judge. Affirmed.
Kim H. Pearman and Robert L. Pearman for Defendant and Appellant.
Marcia L. Kraft, in pro. per.; Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Lori R. Behar and Stephen M. Caine for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________________________
A client, Maria del Carmen Gordon, failed to pay her lawyer, Attorney Marcia Kraft, as agreed. Attorney Kraft sought to withdraw from the representation, and Gordon opposed the motion. The trial court therefore denied the motion, requiring Attorney Kraft to continue representing Gordon, despite their dispute over fees. Attorney Kraft brought the instant suit against Gordon for her fees, while continuing to zealously represent Gordon in the underlying litigation. This case was tried after the underlying litigation was completed. The trial court awarded Attorney Kraft her fees, concluding that Attorney Kraft's pursuit of the fee action did not adversely affect her representation of her client. Gordon appeals, urging the adoption of a bright-line rule that an attorney who sues her client before the underlying representation has terminated forfeits the right to all fees as a matter of law. We disagree and affirm.
FACTUAL[1] AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2001, Gordon hired Attorney Kraft to represent her in her marital dissolution action after the withdrawal of her prior counsel. Pursuant to their signed retainer agreement, Gordon paid Attorney Kraft $5000, and agreed to pay Attorney Kraft her hourly rate when the retainer had been exhausted. Attorney Kraft informed Gordon that she would attempt to recover her fees from Gordon's husband, but, if the court did not order the husband to pay the fees, Gordon herself would be responsible for them. Attorney Kraft also informed Gordon that, if Gordon could not pay in full, she was open to a payment plan where Gordon would pay $5 to $15 per month.[2]
The case proceeded and the retainer was exhausted. Attorney Kraft sent monthly bills to Gordon. Gordon did not pay. By July 16, 2002, Gordon owned Attorney Kraft over $27,000 in fees. Attorney Kraft sent Gordon a Notice of Client's Right to Arbitration, informing her of her right to arbitrate their fee dispute. In her cover letter, Attorney Kraft urged Gordon to â€
