Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Leasing Hotline
ATTORNEYS' FEES
A former client is required to pay attorney's fees where the attorney establishes reasonable litigation and billing practice and the client cannot show that any error claimed by the client was material to the outcome of her matter. Loosemore v. Street, Case No. 2:05CV00008, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Big Stone Gap Division, Nov. 2, 2005.
Loosemore was a former client of the law firm of Hunter, Smith. The law firm withdrew from the client's matter after the client discontinued payment of the law firm's bills for 8 months, and there was a balance owing of $38,000. Although there was no written employment agreement between the law firm and the client, the law firm billed the client monthly. The client objected to paying the full balance because she claimed that some of the litigation would not have occurred but for the attorney's failure to identify the proper cure period correctly in the client's litigation with its tenant.
The court held that the fees sought were reasonable. It held that the attorney's mistake in not discovering the proper cure period was not material because this error did not affect the outcome of the litigation. The court considered that the tenant would have contested the default regardless of any error in the notice. The court further considered that the primary attorney on the matter was an associate who received the file from a partner who discontinued his membership in the firm and that the files received were not organized in a way for the associate to find the information regarding the correct cure period.
ATTORNEYS' FEES
A former client is required to pay attorney's fees where the attorney establishes reasonable litigation and billing practice and the client cannot show that any error claimed by the client was material to the outcome of her matter. Loosemore v. Street, Case No. 2:05CV00008, U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Loosemore was a former client of the law firm of Hunter, Smith. The law firm withdrew from the client's matter after the client discontinued payment of the law firm's bills for 8 months, and there was a balance owing of $38,000. Although there was no written employment agreement between the law firm and the client, the law firm billed the client monthly. The client objected to paying the full balance because she claimed that some of the litigation would not have occurred but for the attorney's failure to identify the proper cure period correctly in the client's litigation with its tenant.
The court held that the fees sought were reasonable. It held that the attorney's mistake in not discovering the proper cure period was not material because this error did not affect the outcome of the litigation. The court considered that the tenant would have contested the default regardless of any error in the notice. The court further considered that the primary attorney on the matter was an associate who received the file from a partner who discontinued his membership in the firm and that the files received were not organized in a way for the associate to find the information regarding the correct cure period.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.