Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (2010)

Citation
Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (2010)
Parent Document
Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (2010)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2010-01-19

Other Sections in This Document (180)

Full Text

538 chars
In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services. The ‘ “experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.” ’ (Ibid.)” (Ketchum v. Moses,