Cruz v. Ayromloo, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725 (2007)

Citation: Cruz v. Ayromloo, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725 (2007)
Parent Document: Cruz v. Ayromloo, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725 (2007)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2007-10-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2300425/cruz-v-ayromloo/ ↗

Full Text

941 chars

deciding in this case. Respondents elected not to appeal the trial court’s ruling the fee award should be reduced in part because respondents’ counsel had agreed to provide representation on a “pro bono” basis. This court’s affirmance of the judgment should not be construed as signifying our approval of this particular element of that judgment. We do not find it self-evident a law firm’s commendable willingness to provide its services on a pro bono basis to low-income clients should necessarily justify a diminishment in the fee award when that pro bono representation proves successful. Because respondents did not directly challenge the court’s decision to reduce the fee award based on the pro bono nature of the litigation, we had no reason to invite the parties to brief the issue. Our research indicates courts reduce a fee award to adjust, for example, for duplicative work, for lack of success on certain issues, or the like. 21

Other Sections in This Document (83)

Full Text