Comments on: The Pro Bono Road to Riches! http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/ Appellate Attorney Greg May on Practice and Developments in the Appellate Courts of California Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:33:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Remember, Don’t Be Shy | The California Blog of Appeal http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/comment-page-1/#comment-2085 Remember, Don’t Be Shy | The California Blog of Appeal Fri, 16 May 2008 07:02:48 +0000 http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/#comment-2085 [...] I told you last October not to be shy when you move to recover attorney fees. Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Board, case no. C053553 (3d Dist. May 15, 2008) is the mos recent case in point. [...] [...] I told you last October not to be shy when you move to recover attorney fees. Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Board, case no. C053553 (3d Dist. May 15, 2008) is the mos recent case in point. [...]

]]> By: Attorney Fee Program Coming Up in Los Angeles | The California Blog of Appeal http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/comment-page-1/#comment-1609 Attorney Fee Program Coming Up in Los Angeles | The California Blog of Appeal Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:31:41 +0000 http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/#comment-1609 [...] that, and especially so in this case, since attorney fees are of particular interest to me (and The Pro Bono Road to Riches is still one of the most traffic-generating posts I’ve [...] [...] that, and especially so in this case, since attorney fees are of particular interest to me (and The Pro Bono Road to Riches is still one of the most traffic-generating posts I’ve [...]

]]> By: Self-Represented Attorney May Not Recover Fees on Anti-SLAPP Motion | The California Blog of Appeal http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/comment-page-1/#comment-1132 Self-Represented Attorney May Not Recover Fees on Anti-SLAPP Motion | The California Blog of Appeal Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:51:23 +0000 http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/#comment-1132 [...] always mean “become obligated to pay” for. Courts have awarded fees in pro bono cases under fee shifting statutes, and will probably do the same someday under a contractual fee provision. As Taheri notes, the [...] [...] always mean “become obligated to pay” for. Courts have awarded fees in pro bono cases under fee shifting statutes, and will probably do the same someday under a contractual fee provision. As Taheri notes, the [...]

]]> By: Pro Bono Attorney Fees in the News Again | The California Blog of Appeal http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/comment-page-1/#comment-1074 Pro Bono Attorney Fees in the News Again | The California Blog of Appeal Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:58:19 +0000 http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/#comment-1074 [...] a very detailed post entitled The Pro Bono Road to Riches! last October, I discussed the issue in the context of a California case, in which the dictum of the [...] [...] a very detailed post entitled The Pro Bono Road to Riches! last October, I discussed the issue in the context of a California case, in which the dictum of the [...]

]]> By: My Attorney Fee Article in CITATIONS | The California Blog of Appeal http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/comment-page-1/#comment-1000 My Attorney Fee Article in CITATIONS | The California Blog of Appeal Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:21:15 +0000 http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/#comment-1000 [...] Association, and for which I serve on the editorial board.  The article is an expanded version of this post on Cruz v. Ayromloo, 155 Cal.App.4th 1270 (2d Dist. Oct. 3, [...] [...] Association, and for which I serve on the editorial board.  The article is an expanded version of this post on Cruz v. Ayromloo, 155 Cal.App.4th 1270 (2d Dist. Oct. 3, [...]

]]> By: Greg May http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/comment-page-1/#comment-685 Greg May Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:37:16 +0000 http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/#comment-685 Miss L, I think you raise an excellent point. Indeed, the cases cited by the court support it. Notwithstanding my cyincal headline (which, I must confess, was drafted to generate interest in the post), the two main things I wanted to accomplish with the post were: (1) show how easily some of the objections to the fees were overcome, and (2) contrast the Cruz court's readiness to award fees to the public outcry to the fee request in the Seattle schools case because of where the money would come from. Third, though I did not bring it up until I added an update, I am curious that the court wrote such lengthy dictum without noting that, unlike the cases it cited, this recovery was based on a contractual provision, which may implicate policy concerns different than those underlying fee-shifting statutes. Miss L,

I think you raise an excellent point. Indeed, the cases cited by the court support it.

Notwithstanding my cyincal headline (which, I must confess, was drafted to generate interest in the post), the two main things I wanted to accomplish with the post were: (1) show how easily some of the objections to the fees were overcome, and (2) contrast the Cruz court’s readiness to award fees to the public outcry to the fee request in the Seattle schools case because of where the money would come from.

Third, though I did not bring it up until I added an update, I am curious that the court wrote such lengthy dictum without noting that, unlike the cases it cited, this recovery was based on a contractual provision, which may implicate policy concerns different than those underlying fee-shifting statutes.

]]> By: Miss L http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/comment-page-1/#comment-683 Miss L Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:13:10 +0000 http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/#comment-683 Student here, so I maybe ignorant of something here. But in a loser pays situation where the winner is represented pro-bono, why should the damages not include fees to be paid to the attorney. Otherwise we're making it cheaper for people to wrong those without money, as their final judgment wouldn't include the 100k+ or what have you in fees. Again if I'm speaking on inexperience, forgive me. Student here, so I maybe ignorant of something here. But in a loser pays situation where the winner is represented pro-bono, why should the damages not include fees to be paid to the attorney. Otherwise we’re making it cheaper for people to wrong those without money, as their final judgment wouldn’t include the 100k+ or what have you in fees.

Again if I’m speaking on inexperience, forgive me.

]]> By: Important Update re Pro Bono Attorney Fees | The California Blog of Appeal http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/comment-page-1/#comment-669 Important Update re Pro Bono Attorney Fees | The California Blog of Appeal Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:59:12 +0000 http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/10/04/the-pro-bono-road-to-riches/#comment-669 [...] addded a very important update to my post entitled The Pro Bono Road to Riches! The update clarifies that the court’s discussion in Cruz v. Ayromloo, case no. B190959 (2d [...] [...] addded a very important update to my post entitled The Pro Bono Road to Riches! The update clarifies that the court’s discussion in Cruz v. Ayromloo, case no. B190959 (2d [...]

]]>