Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The California Supreme Court appeared unlikely Thursday to veer from the rule that clients must sign off on fee-splitting agreements between attorneys. That means a lawyer who worked briefly on a high-profile sexual harassment suit could end up with little of the $1.9 million in fees awarded in the case. Attorney Arne Werchick asked the justices to ignore the absence of client Rena Weeks’ signature and instead consider what his client, Arthur Chambers, was owed for his legal contribution to her successful 1993 suit against Baker & McKenzie. Weeks, a former legal secretary in the firm’s Palo Alto office, won $6.9 million in damages in a 1994 San Francisco Superior Court trial. The trial judge later reduced the award to $3.5 million. About $1.9 million in fees is in dispute. Chambers, a San Francisco solo, was brought into the litigation by lead attorney Philip Kay to help with discovery. Chambers, who also advanced $3,356 in costs and expenses, had a written agreement with Kay to receive 28 percent of the fees if the case went beyond depositions. But Weeks never signed the agreement, as is required by Rule 2-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. During discovery, Kay removed Chambers from the case for “failure to consult” and for having a “different approach” to strategy. He then brought in Alan Exelrod of Rudy Exelrod Zieff. Following trial, Kay informed Chambers that their fee agreement was invalid due to Chambers’ “failure to perform legal services,” among other things. Kay instead offered to pay Chambers $200 an hour for his work. Chambers argues he is entitled to about $500,000 in fees and interest. The First District Court of Appeal held the fee agreement invalid under Rule 2-200, but said that Chambers could pursue a quantum meruit action for the reasonable value of his services. On Thursday, the Supreme Court justices sounded skeptical of Chambers’ claims. Justice Joyce Kennard told Werchick, of Truckee’s Werchick & Werchick, that the signature was no trivial matter. “If I were the client, it would be important to me to have that piece of paper with the signature on it,” Kennard said. She said the rule was designed “to protect the client” and eliminate ambiguity and arguments. “It appears agreeing with you would give rise to all kinds of factual disputes,” Kennard added. Justice Marvin Baxter was curious about what exactly Werchick was asking of the court: a greater fee for his client or a rule change. “Do you want us to disregard the rule or to disregard the facts of the rule in this case?” Baxter asked. “I’m asking you to interpret the rule,” the attorney replied. “All that was missing is the signature. � It’s not the client’s money.” Baxter reminded Werchick that rule 2-200 “comes from the profession itself,” which indicates that lawyers through the State Bar had a hand in its drafting and intent. “It seems to me the rule says what it says,” the justice said. Justice Janice Rogers Brown did ask Kay’s attorney, Kirk Jenkins, why the contract between the two lawyers shouldn’t be enforced. Jenkins, a partner at Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, cited the First District’s decision. Jenkins said it was not up to Kay to seek Weeks’ signature on the agreement, but rather the responsibility of Chambers. “Mr. Chambers had a duty here,” the attorney said. “All he had to do was say, ‘Ms. Weeks � I need your written consent.’” Jenkins also told the court that Chambers was seeking 28 percent of the legal fee, but only performed 3.5 percent of the work on the case. “He’s trying to piggyback on the other attorneys,” Jenkins said. In rebuttal, Werchick argued that “lawyers have to be responsible to each other” and should pay one another for the services they provide. The case is Chambers v Kay, SO98007.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.