DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 37

Citation
Section 37
Parent Document
Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (2010)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2010-01-19
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2256036/chacon-v-litke/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (180)

Full Text

684 chars 
In fact, the case was taken on a contingency basis. As McCurdy states in his declaration: “I represented plaintiffs pursuant to a contingency agreement. According to that agreement, the plaintiffs[] had no obligation to pay fees unless they settled or won at trial. Pursuant to that agreement I am to receive 30% of the Judgment in this matter, or the court awarded fees, whichever is greater. The statutory fee award, therefore, will go to increasing the amount retained by the plaintiffs. When I agreed to take this case on a contingent basis, I had the expectation that if we were successful, my fee would reflect the greater fee paid for contingent work in the legal marketplace.”