Bienert, Miller & Katzman v. Patwardhan CA4/3

Filed 8/22/16 Bienert, Miller & Katzman v. Patwardhan CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN PLC,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G052667

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00674401)

VINOD CHANDRASHEKHAR OPINION PATWARDHAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, William D. Claster, Judge. Affirmed. Ferrucci Law Group and Joseph Anthony Ferrucci for Defendant and Appellant. Bienert, Miller & Katzman, Kenneth M. Miller and Anthony Bisconti for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION This is a one-issue appeal, dealing with the accrual of a cause of action for nonpayment of attorney fees based on a written retainer agreement. Appellant Vinod Patwardhan asserts that a separate cause of action accrues when each payment comes due – that is, upon receipt of each monthly bill for legal services – and the limitation period expires for each bill four years later. Respondent Bienert, Miller & Katzman, PLC (“Law Firm”) maintain that the cause of action does not accrue until an attorney ceases to provide legal services to the client; the limitations period expires four years after that event. After a court trial on stipulated facts and evidence, the trial court agreed with Law Firm and awarded it the full amount of the fees for which it sued. We affirm. Venerable but still valid case law holds that the limitation period for attorney fee collection does not begin until the attorney ceases to provide services on the matter for which he or she was hired or until the relationship terminates. As the trial court pointed out, appellant’s rule could potentially place the attorney in conflict with the client – having to sue the client during the representation. We do not think the rule should be different when, as here, both a third party and the client are liable for fees. The potential for disruption of the attorney-client relationship is still present if the lawyer must sue both of them in order to maintain his or her right to payment. FACTS On September 11, 2008, Law Firm agreed to represent Jessica Young in an investigation of Patwardhan by the United States government. Patwardhan undertook to pay Law Firm’s fees for this representation. The retainer agreement with Young provided that “[b]ills are due and payable on receipt. Any statement not paid in full within one month shall bear a late charge of .8% per month on the unpaid balance.” The agreement also stated, “[Young] understands that should [Patwardhan] fail to pay [Young’s] legal fees and costs, then [Young] is responsible for paying of all legal fees and costs incurred or expected on [Young’s] behalf.”