.jpg)
Quick - hearing right now - I need a case or argument
body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}
great
-----OrigCDCBAA@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>Sent: Mar 6, 2018 8:51 AM To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com Cc: Nacba BK Listserv , Nacba BK OT Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Quick - hearing right now - I need a case or argument why atty not entitled to interest on his fees
Thanks, Stella! FYI I defeated the MSJ. This issue didnt even come up and we didnt even go on the record. We just went in chambers and the judge said I can just submit an order denying the motion. He
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:19 AM Havkin Stella havkinlaw@earthlink.net [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The reasonableness of fees is always an issue because if the work done was not necessary or took too long, that is always at it issue.
-----Original Message----- hollyroark22@gmail.com [cdcbaa]" Sent: Mar 6, 2018 7:05 AM To: cdcbaa , Nacba BK Listserv , Nacba BK OT Subject: [cdcbaa] Quick - hearing right now - I need a case or argument why atty not entitled to interest on his fees
Interest on fees is in the contract. But fees are in legitimate dispute. 18 months of litigation now.
My client was sued by his attorney for fees. Fees are genuinely in dispute. Atty filed MSJ. Hearing in 5 mins. I need an argument and authority (I don't care from what jurisdiction) as to why/how judge has discretion to not award interest per the contract.
My thought is that since this is subject to a genuine dispute, atty should not be entitled to 18 months of interest just because the contract says he's entitled to interest if fees are paid late. Client isn't just refusing to pay bill. Bill is legit in dispute.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks, Stella! FYI I defeated the MSJ. This issue didnt even come up and
we didnt even go on the record. We just went in chambers and the judge
said I can just submit an order denying the motion. Hes going to put it on
the record but I got to go home.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:19 AM Havkin Stella havkinlaw@earthlink.net
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> The reasonableness of fees is always an issue because if the work done was
> not necessary or took too long, that is always at it issue.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Mar 6, 2018 7:05 AM
> To: cdcbaa , Nacba BK Listserv , Nacba BK OT
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Quick - hearing right now - I need a case or argument
> why atty not entitled to interest on his fees
>
>
>
> Interest on fees is in the contract. But fees are in legitimate dispute.
> 18 months of litigation now.
>
> My client was sued by his attorney for fees. Fees are genuinely in
> dispute. Atty filed MSJ. Hearing in 5 mins. I need an argument and
> authority (I don't care from what jurisdiction) as to why/how judge has
> discretion to not award interest per the contract.
>
> My thought is that since this is subject to a genuine dispute, atty should
> not be entitled to 18 months of interest just because the contract says
> he's entitled to interest if fees are paid late. Client isn't just refusing
> to pay bill. Bill is legit in dispute.
>
>
>
>
> Holly Roark
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> *and Sports Lawyer*
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
>
> www..roarklawoffices.com
>
> *Central District of California & District of Idaho* - Consumer
> Bankruptcy Attorney
> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
>
>
> T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
>
> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
>
>
>
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
*and Sports Lawyer*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
*Central District of California & District of Idaho* - Consumer Bankruptcy
Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
Thanks, Stella! FYI I defeated the MSJ. This issue didnt even come up and we didnt even go on the record. We just went in chambers and the judge said I can just submit an order denying the motion. Hes going to put it on the record but I got to go home.On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:19 AM Havkin Stella havkinlaw@earthlink.net [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The reasonableness of fees is always an issue because if the work done was not necessary or took too long, that is always at it issue.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}
The reasonableness of fees is always an issue because if the work done was not necessary or took too long, that is always at it issue.
-----OrigCDCBAA@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>Sent: Mar 6, 2018 7:05 AM To: cdcbaa , Nacba BK Listserv , Nacba BK OT Subject: [cdcbaa] Quick - hearing right now - I need a case or argument why atty not entitled to interest on his fees
Interest on fees is in the contract. But fees are in legitimate dispute. 18 months of litigation now.
My client was sued by his attorney for fees. Fees are genuinely in dispute. Atty filed MSJ. Hearing in 5 mins. I need an argument and authority (I don't care from what jurisdiction) as to why/how judge has discretion to not award interest per the contract.
My thought is that since this is subject to a genuine dispute, atty should not be entitled to 18 months of interest just because the contract says he's entitled to interest if fees are paid late. Client isn't just refusing to pay bill. Bill is legit in dispute.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
and Sports Lawyer
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www..roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California & District of Idaho - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
The post was migrated from Yahoo.