Quote:
Originally Posted by AngusThermopyle
Lawyer asked for $42,879.50 in fees
Judge awarded $26,547 in fees
a. What happens to the other $16,332.50 ? Cancelled? Client has to pay?
b. Who owns the debt, ie who has to try to collect from Postle? Lawyer or client?
c. If client, does that mean that the client has to pay the lawyer now?
d. My understanding of anti-SLAPP, the fees awarded only cover the work on the motion. Any other work performed by the lawyer on the case is not covered. May the client be on the hook for that work? Usually forgiven?
a. The lawyer says it cost him $42,000 in labor to file the Motion. This Motion is one of the rare ones in California law that REQUIRES legal fees to be granted if its won. Legal fees have to be "reasonable." Judge determines what is reasonable based on declarations (aka "evidence."). The judge says $42k is not reasonable. For example, half a hour to set up a hearing date, which is a telephone call, is not "reasonable."
The judge said the bill you can collect is 26k. Thats it, the $42k was hypothetical number that is gone.
b. Lawyer collects. Its his money - attorney fees. Although I guess Witteles and the lawyer could have contracted for another agreement. That would be subject to their own private dealings.
Notably, and Postles main defense, was that since he never served Witteles, its not fair that he has to face the consequences of filing his lawsuit. The judge did not buy it. Witteles chose to appear and pursue this motion because it was a guaranteed winner.
Postle tried to be the victim with his own lawsuit he filed lol.
Postle's big **** up was DISMISSING the case which meant he automatically admitted defeat. He should have tried to negotiate a dismissal of the case in exchange of dismissal of the motion to strike.
c. Witteles likely owes nothing, although if the case was defended beyond this Motion to Strike, I imagine the client would pay.
d. You are correct, the Motion to Strike attorney fees are only for work not hat motion. But attorney legal fees are not black and white. (Hence the lawyer jokes and that Tom Cruise movie about overbilling). That would be in the Witteles - attorney retainer agreement.
Anti-Slapp stops the entire case before discovery or before an answer/appearance, so there usually isn't too much work. I am guessing most likely the lawyer took the case knowing he would get $26k in legal fees for a few hours of work and some decent exposure on top of it, and Witteles would not have to pay anything.