In some cases, some lawyers do not or do not charge a fee for a short phone call or email, while they are technically able to comply with most fee agreements. · The most common problem that the authors see in fee agreements is the non-compliance with the legal requirements of Section 6147 of the Code of Business and Professions, so that the agreements are enforceable and the lawyer is not referred to the quantum recovery of meruits; A former lawyer filed a complaint for non-payment, with a jury invoking the former lawyer $114,400 for his infringement claim and $19,854 for a claim on money owed and due (the latter being the amount of unpaid bills). The lower court granted a new conditional procedure, unless the former lawyer agreed to pay only $US 19,854, as jurors apparently awarded money to the former lawyer for his own work to represent himself in violation of Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 277, 292 (1995). Next, the trial judge awarded the former attorney US$55,000 in fees for a lawyer with whom he counseled himself, much less than the $US 297,608.26 claim. (The jury also tried General Yeager for a lawsuit for privacy violation/name theft when the former attorney used General Yeager`s name for some time on his site.) According to the DCA Legal Guide, “the law does not require translation into a foreign language for subsequent documents approved or likely to be carried out by the original contract or its amendments. Examples of documents that do not need to be translated are periodic invoices, supporting documents, invoices,. . . that are provided by the original contract or manufactured in accordance with the original contract. (DCA Legal Guide) Nevertheless, it seems prudent and appropriate for lawyers to provide translations of key documents, such as written settlement requests under Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
However, the 4/3 DCA panel conditioned its result on the fact that a 15-day period was too short to meet fiduciary standards between lawyer and client. “We are not addressing the feasibility of a much longer period during which lawyers` accounts have to be challenged.” (Slip op. to 9-10.) In addition, the Court of Appeal strongly suggested that an expert in pre-trial detention could be advised to assist the Tribunal in setting the amount of lawyers` fees. . . .