Monday, October 27, 2025
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Judge Properly Ordered Defendant to Pay Victim Fees for Lawyer Who Helped Her in Courtroom
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A man who pled guilty to felony battery charges based on conduct following a traffic accident he caused—beating the driver of the other car and her passenger—was properly ordered to pay two lawyers $5,000 each in connection with their assistance in asserting victims’ rights in the court proceedings, Div. Five of the Court of Appeal for this district held Friday, drawing a dissent as to requiring recompense to one of the attorneys.
At issue in the appeal were the method of calculating the fees—which Presiding Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt found to have been correct—and whether defendant Yeayo Altanae Russell was properly ordered by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa Strassner to pay anything to Beverly Hills attorney James Lochead. That lawyer was hired by the driver of the car Russell hit, Iran Luna Herrera, to help her understand the court proceedings and to oppose a proposed plea bargain.
Hoffstadt authored yesterday’s unpublished majority opinion, joined in by retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Sanjay Kumar, stetting on assignment. The presiding justice pointed to Penal Code §1202.4(f)(3)(H)) which authorizes a judge at a restitution hearing to order payment of “[a]ctual and reasonable attorney’s fees...accrued by a private entity on behalf of the victim,” noting that a proviso, under case law, is that the fees are “proper, necessary, and a logical result” of the criminal conduct.
Requisites Met
He wrote:
“The fee award for Lochead s services satisfies this definition. Herrera actually incurred the S5.000 flat fee she paid to Lochead: she explained what Lochead did to earn that fee—namely, attended the many proceedings in this case, explained those proceedings to her in real time, spoke to the prosecutor, and kept her updated on the proceedings: and defendant did not introduce evidence indicating those services were worth less than the S5.000 Herrera paid.”
Hoffstadt declared:
“The fee paid to Lochead to enforce Herrera’s constitutional rights has a direct relationship to the crime of which defendant was convicted.”
Kim’s Partial Dissent
In a partial dissent, Justice Dorothy C. Kim protested:
“…Herrera hired Lochead because she objected to the parties’ proposed plea agreement. Fees paid to a private lawyer who advocates for a higher sentence…is not a loss that results from defendant’s criminal conduct….Instead, it is a loss that results from defendant’s efforts to negotiate a more favorable plea.”
She added:
“…Herrera also paid Lochead to explain ‘legalese’ used by the court during court proceedings. While it is reasonably foreseeable that a crime victim would not understand every word used during a court proceeding, it is not. at least at present, reasonably foreseeable that a victim would retain the services of an attorney to explain, in real time, any specific terms that she did not understand.”
The case is People v. Russell, B336246.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company