California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Sims v. Charness, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 619, 86 Cal App 4th 884 (Cal. App. 2001):
5. We repeat, however, the view we expressed in Margolin v. Shemaria, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at page 903, footnote 7 as follows: "By this opinion, we do not decide whether we would refuse to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel in a situation where the attorney seeking to enforce a fee-sharing agreement that does not comply with rule 2-200 is the attorney to whom the case was referred, since such an attorney would be the one that did most or all the work on the case and reliance on the assurances of referring counsel (who necessarily has the original client relationship) might well be reasonable."
5. We repeat, however, the view we expressed in Margolin v. Shemaria, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at page 903, footnote 7 as follows: "By this opinion, we do not decide whether we would refuse to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel in a situation where the attorney seeking to enforce a fee-sharing agreement that does not comply with rule 2-200 is the attorney to whom the case was referred, since such an attorney would be the one that did most or all the work on the case and reliance on the assurances of referring counsel (who necessarily has the original client relationship) might well be reasonable."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.