Ibarra Professional Law Corp. v. Gu CA1/3

Filed 5/15/25 Ibarra Professional Law Corp. v. Gu CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

IBARRA PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170743, A170858 v. (City & County of San Francisco PAULO ZHUO HENG GU, Super. Ct. No. CGC17561980) Defendant and Appellant.

Ibarra Professional Law Corporation (firm) sued its former client, Paulo Zhuo Heng Gu, to recover attorney fees he owed under five retainer agreements. After a trial, the court found Gu breached the agreements and awarded the firm damages, interest on past due sums, and prevailing party attorney fees and costs. Gu appeals. We affirm. BACKGROUND In October 2017, the firm sued Gu, alleging he breached five retainer agreements by failing to pay attorney fees. The firm sought $94,262.78 in compensatory and general damages and attorney fees and costs. In March 2017, Gu sought the firm’s assistance in seeking asylum. After meeting with Crisostomo Ibarra — the firm’s principal attorney — Gu signed a retainer agreement for “asylum defense.” He agreed to pay hourly fees for the firm’s services, costs and expenses related to the representation, and 10 percent annual interest on all amounts 30 days past due. The parties 1

also agreed the prevailing party could recover reasonable attorney fees and costs for any action to enforce payment. In April 2017, the firm prepared an asylum application and submitted it to the immigration court. Meanwhile, immigration authorities detained Gu after he was arrested for threats, battery, and violation of a domestic violence restraining order. When Ibarra visited Gu at the detention center, Gu asked for representation on four other matters — corporate consulting, criminal defense, marriage dissolution, and a petition to establish paternity. The firm drafted four retainer agreements. Gener Benitez — an attorney at the firm — returned to the detention center and watched Gu sign the agreements. The agreements were for “[c]orporate and [i]nternational consulting,” “[c]riminal defense of alleged assault,” defense and pursuit of a civil restraining order, dissolution of marriage and child custody, and a petition to establish parentage. All included hourly rates for services, Gu’s responsibility for costs, 10 percent interest on bills 30 days past due, and a prevailing party attorney fee and costs provision in an action to enforce payment. The firm worked pursuant to the agreements. For example, in addition to pursuing asylum, the firm litigated venue and Gu’s potential release on bond. It also prepared a writ of habeas corpus after immigration authorities did not respond to the firm’s attempts to locate Gu. Eventually, Gu secured asylum. Gu also told Ibarra he owned a newspaper company in Hong Kong, mining companies in Malaysia, and that he wanted to move assets from Hong Kong and China to the United States. Ibarra travelled to Hong Kong and met with attorneys on Gu’s behalf. The criminal domestic violence case was dismissed. In June 2017, after issuing invoices, the firm learned Gu wanted it to stop working. He left sums unpaid.