Cazares v. Saenz

Facts

Saenz (D) was at attorney of limited experience. The Mexican consulate in San Diego called D regarding a serious accident of a Mexican national, Raul Gutierrez. Raul had been burned after touching a power line belonging to San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Raul retained D to represent him and that retainer agreement allowed D to retain co-counsel. D shared office space with Cazares & Tosdal (P). D associated P in the case with his client's approval. However, D really wanted Cazares in the case and did not feel at all comfortable with Tosdal as he was an Anglo surfer and just too liberal for D. D did not object to Tosdal working on the case so long as D himself did not have to deal with Tosdal. A work split was agreed to with P to handle most of the legal work. D and Cazares agreed to split the contingency fee. At trial, both Cazares and D testified that they expected and assumed that Cazares would prosecute the case to its conclusion. During the next 2.5 years, all went well, and Tosdal did not perform any work on the case; Cazares, as agreed, did the work with D's help. In 1981, the P law firm partnership was dissolved, but it was agreed that some cases would be retained. Cazares and D moved to a new office and continued to work on the case for the next year. In May 1982, Cazares was appointed a municipal judge. Cazares urged D to seek Tosdal's help on the case. D refused. Tosdal wrote D a letter of his willingness to proceed. D never responded. D then got another attorney to help in the case. The case was settled for $1.1 million with a fee entitlement of $366,000. D paid his other attorney and an assistant $47,000 and visited Cazares and offered to pay him $40,000 for his work. Cazares declined and made his demand known for $183,000. The case was tried before a referee. The referee gave judgment to P for $159,833; the amount due less 1/2 the $47,000 paid to the other attorneys. D appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.