Three Lawyers, With Nothing in Writing, Battle It Out Over Fees

Wednesday, September 19, 2001

Page 9

PERSPECTIVES (Column)

Three Lawyers, With Nothing in Writing, Battle It Out Over Fees

By ROGER M. GRACE

There’s probably no piece of advice attorneys render to clients more often than this one: “Get it in writing.”

A jury trial, estimated for three days, is slated to start in Norwalk on Tuesday. The litigants are three attorneys, litigating because they did not commit to writing what their respective share of fees would be.

Surfacing in the litigation were allegations by plaintiff Grace St. Clair, a Redondo Beach practitioner, that her one-time co-counsel, Claire Ambrosio, had functioned pretty much as a paralegal rather than a lawyer, and that Long Beach attorney Judith Cannavo had engaged in the mishandling of client trust funds.

Rendering the fray all the more interesting is that the fees which three lawyers are tussling over were derived from the successful representation of actress Julie Newmar.

Ambrosio’s lawyer, Thomas Byrne, yesterday characterized the litigation as “a stupid pissing match,” which he predicted will be settled before Tuesday.

A contract does exist, executed by St. Clair, Ambrosio and Newmar, setting forth what share of the proceeds the lawyers would get if Newmar succeeded in her claim against the city in connection with a water pipe blowout. Thirty percent was the contingency fee. What is not in writing is how that 30 percent was to be divided.

Newmar’s claim was settled for $150,000. According to St. Clair’s complaint, the settlement was reached without her knowledge—she was delivering a baby that day—and was less than the $185,000 for which she had been negotiating. She also expresses bewilderment that Ambrosio and Cannavo, without her consent, agreed to accept $2,500 less than the 30 percent specified in the attorney-client agreement, bringing the fees down to $42,500.

The plaintiff avers that prior to the settlement, it was orally agreed by the lawyers that St. Clair and Ambrosio would each receive half of the 30 percent, and that each would pay $2,500 to Cannavo for her work as—in the words of the complaint—“an assistant attorney in trial preparation and planning.”

As St. Clair reckons the amount to which she was entitled, after payment to Cannavo, it was $20,000. Instead, she was sent a check for $8,000. Ambrosio explained in a letter of April 3, 1999, accompanying the check:

“This letter is to respond to your telephone calls and your letter dated March 31, 1999. I wish to thank you for all of your help and support in the Newmeyer v. DWP action, however we only had a fee agreement with the client and the not an agreement on how fees were to be split and in the absence of a written fee agreement the principals [sic] of quantum meruit apply. Therefore, fees based on this principal are to be paid for services performed. I am enclosing a check in the amount of $8000 for your services in this matter. You will recall that in the beginning of this case we were paid $1500.00 which you split on a quantum meruit basis.

“I value our professional and personal relationships and do not wish this to effect [sic] either one. I am grateful for the work you performed in this case, however under the circumstances I feel this arrangement is amicable.”

That didn’t satisfy St. Clair. Her complaint, prepared by James J. Regan and Lorne Lilienthal of the Regan • Braun Law Offices in Redondo Beach, alleged that it was St. Clair, not Ambrosio, who was lead counsel in the case, doing the lion’s share of the work.

It set forth that a friend of Ambrosio referred Newmar to her; Ambrosio was, at the time, working for a law office as a paralegal, notwithstanding that she had passed the bar exam; Ambrosio brought St. Clair, “an experienced real estate attorney,” into the case in 1996 because she knew she couldn’t handle matters for Newmar on her own; and St. Clair assisted Ambrosio “in learning client management skills, case strategy and legal thinking and writing skills.” The complaint went on to say:

“During the time in question, AMBROSIO often acted more like a paralegal than an attorney. Many of the documents she had drafted, including the Complaint and many letters, required painstaking revision by ST. CLAIR. Although she propounded discovery by the DWP, she refused and failed to follow ST. CLAIR’s advisement to follow up with Motions to Compel further discovery after the DWP provided grossly inadequate responses thereto. Additionally, AMBROSIO regularly left work early on Fridays when important matters needed attending while leaving ST. CLAIR to work alone on matters that she had agreed to accomplish.

“….ST CLAIR was the contact person with the client. AMBROSIO was unable to deal with Newmar who hung up the telephone on AMBROSIO on several occasions. Moreover, Newmar fired her attorneys on three occasions as a result of AMBROSIO’s actions and it was ST. CLAIR that repeatedly rescued the case.”

The complaint asserted that “CANNAVO’S contributions were incidental to the litigation,” and it was agreed her fees would be capped at $5,000.

Attached to the complaint was correspondence which included an April 5, 1999 letter from St. Clair to Cannavo accusing her of misappropriating client trust funds and expressing the assumption that she and Ambrosio “are in collusion to act illegally in this matter.”

In contrast to the averment in the complaint that Cannovo’s involvement in the case was minimal, Byrne told me:

“Nothing against St. Clair—but she’s a transactional attorney. Judy had to come in and save the day.”

(Byrne and Cannavo are both ethnic bar leaders. Byrne is a past president of the Irish American Bar Assn. and Cannavo is president-elect of the Italian American Lawyers Assn.)

I spoke with St. Clair’s lawyer, Lilienthal, yesterday, but he declined comment pending authorization from his client.

An arbitrator in May found that the $42,500 should be divided as follows: $11,000 to St. Clair, $16,945 to Ambrosio and $14,555 to Cannavo. A jury sitting next week in the courtroom of Superior Court Superior Court Judge Bob T. Hight next week will determine the question for itself, unless a settlement takes place.

Has Byrne lectured Ambrosio on the need to get agreements in writing? He responds:

“Yes—and I’m trying to learn that myself, too.”

KUDOS—I was taken aback by a document I received from a court reporter. Pursuant to a policy of the Los Angeles Superior Court (authorized by a state rule), fees for a half-day of reporting—$325—must be posted when a transcript is ordered in connection with a motion, no matter how brief the hearing was. Two transcripts of brief hearings were completed, and what should have arrived was a check refunding the surplus amount. Instead, there came a declaration under penalty of perjury for me to sign attesting to an entitlement to a refund. This struck me as nonsense.

I expressed that view in a letter to court Executive Officer Jack Clarke. A response came from Court Attorney Frederick R. Bennett. The bottom line was this announcement:

“With the goal of expediting the process and eliminating the need for certification from the depositor, we have modified our practice to eliminate the use of the ‘Request for Refund of Transcript Deposit’ form that you objected to. We will now rely upon the certification of the lead reporter as to the completion of all parts of the transcript, and of the amount of any excess to be returned to each depositor. We will return the deposit to the individual who made the deposit. We hope that this new practice will allow us to better serve our customers, and we thank you for focusing our attention on this issue.”

It is all too rare for a government agency to reexamine a practice because somebody has grumbled about it. The responsiveness of the Superior Court was heartening and commendable.

MORE KUDOS—A pro per came across my columns (in our archive on the Internet) criticizing Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner John Slawson’s campaign assertions in his race for a judgeship last year. She contacted me, and provided mounds of materials in an effort to show Slawson’s incompetence and corruption.

What the transcripts reflected were traits quite different from those ascribed to him by his detractor. They revealed extraordinary patience on his part and meticulous concern for the parties’ rights.