Jewel v. Boxer

156 Cal.App.3d 171 (1984)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The law firm of Jewel, Boxer, and Elking was in progress of dissolving. There was no partnership agreement, and a dispute arose over how to allocate the fees for each client that went with each partner after the dissolution. Shortly after dissolution, each former partner sent a letter to each client whose case he handled for the old firm announcing the dissolution. The letter contained a substitution of attorney form. The issue was proper allocation of attorney fees received from these cases. Jewel and Leary (P) filed a complaint for an accounting of these fees contending they were assets of the partnership. The trial court made a determination of approximate ownership and then proceeded to allocate the disputed fees among the old and new firms by considering the time spent, the source of each case, and in the personal injury cases the contingency fees and the result achieved by the new firm. The court then proceeded to assign values that could be multiplied by the fees in such cases to determine allocations. Under these formulas, P was determined to owe $115,041.16 to the old firm and D was determined to owe $291,718.60 to the old firm. P appealed.