Shtofman v. Kyle CA2/2

Filed 12/15/15 Shtofman v. Kyle CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ROBERT SCOTT SHTOFMAN, B250087

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC462283) v.

DAVID KYLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Frederick Carl Shaller, Judge. Affirmed.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Roy G. Weatherup, Bartley L. Becker and Caroline E. Chan for Defendant and Appellant.

Robert Scott Shtofman, in pro. per.; and Law Office of Robert Scott Shtofman for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

This case involves two attorneys, defendant and appellant David Kyle (Kyle) and plaintiff and respondent Robert Scott Shtofman (Shtofman), who had joint venture agreements to share attorney fees. After Kyle failed to pay Shtofman certain fees, Shtofman sued him alleging several causes of action, including breach of contract and fraud. A jury found in favor of Shtofman and imposed punitive damages against Kyle. Kyle now appeals. He contends that certain retainer agreements he and Shtofman had with their clients are unenforceable under Rule 2-200 of the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct (rule 2-200) and that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdicts. We affirm on substantive and procedural grounds. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Agreements Between 2002 and 2009, Kyle and Shtofman entered into a series of oral joint venture agreements, in which they agreed to work together on various groups of legal cases and to share equally attorney fees and costs. In 2007 and 2008, they entered into attorney-client retainer agreements with four different clients (the retainer agreements) in what the parties call the Lutheran clergy sexual abuse cases (the clergy abuse cases). The retainer agreements were drafted and signed only by Kyle, but name both Kyle and Shtofman as “attorney,” and provide that “attorney” would receive 40 percent of any recovery. In January 2009, Kyle and Shtofman entered into an agreement with attorney Paul Kiesel (Kiesel) regarding the clergy abuse cases. Shtofman testified that the terms of the agreement were that he and Kyle would receive 50 percent of attorney fees from the clergy abuse cases. At a lunch meeting at Philippe’s Restaurant on January 11, 2011, Shtofman asked Kyle about the status of the clergy abuse cases. Kyle responded that it was “none of [Shtofman’s] business.” In fact, Kyle knew that the cases had settled, and he admitted at trial that he did not tell Shtofman about the settlement. The next day, Shtofman checked the Web site for the Los Angeles Superior Court and learned that the cases had settled and been dismissed on November 30, 2010. When Shtofman called Kyle about the