THE ONLY Measure 114 related discussion thread

garyk said:

Perhaps this will work?

https://www.ifish.net/attachments/kaemph-law-v-off-kevin-starrett-pdf.1000139/?hash=84c0a4a5f1caa5b77ec4dfd07d5a8321

Click to expand...

It works!!!!

I don't get this part.......

"Defendants paid Plaintiff a $60,000 retainer for Plaintiff’s initial work on the lawsuit. Plaintiff then worked on the lawsuit for several months, including seeking the requested emergency injunctive relief for Defendants. The retainer was thus exhausted through that work by Plaintiff."

When was the retainer paid? The contract was not fully executed until Nov.21st. Was there work being done prior to the contract being in place between Kaemph and OFF?

How could there have been "several months" work if the measure was not even approved until Nov. 8th?

-E-

That Kaemph Law lawsuit against OFF is interesting. Fee Agreement signed on November 21st and they were fired on December 8. So the contract was in place for only 17 days. The fee agreement letter promised that Kaemph Law would notify OFF before they did any work that exceeded the $60K retainer. Kaemph Law is claiming $126K+ in fees, $66K of which they billed on December 15th, a week after being fired. Based on the OFF email, OFF is stating that Kaemph Law billed them for work they allegedly did before the agreement was ever signed, and did not notify them in advance of that $66K extra work (thus violating the Fee Agreement). So as part of the evidentiary discovery phase, Kaemph Law will have to produce the advance notification documentation for that $66K of extra work if they hope to win the lawsuit. As well as all of their billing documentation for the judge to review, and there are strict rules and regulations regarding billing for law firms. Interesting that Kaemph Law opted to represent itself in the lawsuit, given attorney/client privileges rules that is a little odd.....

A judge is going to question why any work done prior to the fee agreement being signed didn't bill against the $60K retainer first instead of being included in the final bill a week after being fired. As well as if the work done prior to the fee agreement signed was known to be greater than $60K why was the retainer only set at $60K. Kaemph Law will have to show a copy of the actual Fee Agreement (wasn't included in the lawsuit paperwork) and that agreement has to have specific terms that show OFF agreed to pay for the specific work completed prior to the Fee Agreement being signed. So yeah, will be interesting to follow the evidentiary discovery phase to see who is telling the truth....

If it's true that "several months of work" was done before the Fee Agreement was signed, the retainer should have been set to an amount that would reflect that as part of full disclosure under attorney ethics rules.....