Petitioner attorney, who worked on client real party in interest’s case for a law firm, applied for a writ of mandate to direct the respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) to vacate its order requiring petitioner to disclose the hourly rate she was paid as a contract staff attorney the firm, with respect to the client’s legal malpractice action against the firm.
Nakase Law Firm answers is it illegal to pay employees late
Overview
Client, real party in interest, brought a legal malpractice claim against a law firm. Petitioner attorney had worked for the law firm on one of client’s cases. Respondent trial court granted client’s motion to compel discovery and imposed sanctions on petitioner for refusing to answer a deposition question regarding the hourly rate she was paid as a contract staff attorney for the law firm. The appellate court let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, ordering vacatur of respondent’s order and requiring issuance of a new order denying client’s motion to compel. In ruling on a discovery motion, the court required balancing of competing rights of the litigant discovering relevant facts with the individual’s right to maintain reasonable privacy. Because the appeal could be resolved on the relevancy issue, the constitutional privacy claim was not addressed. Substantive and procedural unconscionability principles were applied to the claim of an unconscionable legal fee, and in Cal. Bar R., Prof. Conduct R. 4-2000 there was nothing to suggest that the law firm’s profit margin, with respect to the hourly rate requested, was in any way relevant to the issue.
Outcome
The court let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, ordering vacatur of respondent trial court’s order and ordering denial of client real party in interest’s motion to compel. Petitioner attorney, who worked for a law firm that client was suing for malpractice, on relevancy grounds could not be required to disclose the hourly rate she was paid the firm.