Fox never proceeded with the binding arbitration that its agreement called for.

Fox opposed CLIENT's petition to compel that arbitration, and after it was granted Fox did not proceed to arbitration, apparently because it did not want to pay the provisional charges for asserting its claim. Even after dismissing its fee action, Fox continued to abstain from arbitration, allowing the original six-month deadline to pass. And when Corell filed her present complaint, Fox did not challenge it or seek to stay the action on grounds it belonged in arbitration (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4); instead, in violation of its own agreement, Fox reasserted as a cross-complaint the very fee claim that had been ordered arbitrated. As for the lack of “further judicial action,” apart from the normally retained judicial functions that follow an order to arbitrate (see Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 487), Fox’s dismissal occurred just before – and pretermitted – a further status conference about the unarbitrated state of the case.

In sum, Fox’s dismissal of the fee action, and its conduct thereafter, reflect an attempted evasion of both the mandatory fee arbitration award and the arbitral process as a whole. As in Hawkins, supra, 140 Cal.App.3d 334, by that dismissal Fox repudiated its request for a trial de novo. The February 6, 2003 award therefore became final and binding, as provided by Business and Professions Code section 6203, subdivision (b).

From the foregoing it follows that the dismissal of Corell’s suit must be reversed, because the arbitration to which the court believed it to be relegated no longer exists (assuming it ever did). On the other hand, the dismissal of the cross-complaint for fees must be affirmed, not only because it stands unchallenged here, but also because the now binding MFAA award bars pursuit of additional fees by Fox."

Lisa Bergman Hughes - Orange
Our sources speak of Bergman Hughes legendary temper; and her ability to burn through fees, in fairly short order, on routine paperwork.

Prescott & Prescott - Orange
…and attorneys wonder why people don’t like them.

After the website of Prescott & Prescott was incorrectly identified in an upcoming San Diego Magazine article referring to this site, we called to request a two-month link back from their site to ours, (prior to the issue hitting the stands), common practice when an error of this type occurs.

In fact, because none of our calls were returned, we called four times. (Yes, we did wonder if potential clients experienced a similar reaction).

It was during our fourth call; Tonya Prescott came on the line. Tonya indicated she didn't know anything about the site; who hosted it, if the designers were still in business, how to add the link, nada. Bumpkiss. Zip.

We located their hosting company and then emailed both Tonya and Valerie the name and phone number of their host, along with verification the link could be made by the host, upon Their request.

Late Friday, we learned both attorneys were going away on vacation, (tough luck for the clients if opposing counsel made any Ex Parte motions); but separate from that, Valerie would first have to inquire as to their liability for doing a link back, and oh yes; what might the State Bar say.

We were underwhelmed by their response to a simple, basic request.

EVELYN ANN KRAMER [#107242],
Kramer, 45, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on three years of probation with a 60-day actual suspension, effective May 30, 2001.

Kramer stipulated to six counts of misconduct,

She failed to perform legal services competently in a child support matter and an action against her client’s former attorney, didn't respond to to several inquiries from her client, nor did she inform the client the requested complaint had not been filed.

After the client complained to the State Bar, Kramer contacted her to explain she had been out of her office and would be in touch soon. Kramer never did respond to her client.

Prior instances of misconduct resulted in an suspension in 2000, after Kramer did not return files and unearned fees for for six months. Likewise, she did not cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

Kramer also was disciplined in 1997 for failing to perform competently, respond to client inquiries or deposit client funds in a trust account.

In mitigation, Kramer cooperated with bar prosecutors, and has taken several courses designed to improve her management skills. She's also done volunteer work for a charitable organization.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Navigation: