A California appellate court has upheld a decision in favor of an Orange County litigation firm in a suit against another attorney over the division of legal fees in an underlying case for a common client, criticizing him for “trying to be clever” and saying the attorney’s arguments lacked basis.
The appellate court ruled Wednesday that an agreement between Callahan & Blaine, which originally filed the underlying case but later backed out because of a conflict, and William K. Vogeler, who then took up the case, was enforceable and that the trial court was right to say Vogeler owed Callahan more than $82,500.
The court also blasted Vogeler’s argument that, since the agreement in question was a lien release agreement contingent upon the $82,500 payment, Callahan still had the original lien and thus the firm was still in the same position it had been before entering the agreement.
“In this false argument, Vogeler is apparently trying to be clever in asserting that because he didn’t pay as promised, Callahan was not damaged,” the decision said. “Again, Vogeler provides no citation to legal authority to support his assertion.”
Callahan initially filed the underlying suit on behalf of electronics vendor Pyramid Technologies Inc. in 2008 against its insurance company, according to the decision. The following year, however, the firm stepped down from the suit due to a conflict, the decision said.
The suit, which concerned claims related to a water incursion event at Pyramid, eventually settled for $1.5 million with Vogeler now representing Pyramid, according to the decision. After the settlement was announced, Callahan agreed to release a previous lien it had filed, which related to the fees it claimed to be owed, in exchange for an agreement that Vogeler would pay the firm $82,500 from the settlement proceeds, the decision said.
After the settlement money was transferred into a trust account, however, Vogeler paid himself $125,000 but never paid Callahan the money he had promised, according to the decision.
Callahan then sued to collect the money and was granted summary judgment in 2017, the decision said.
On appeal, Callahan argued the lien release agreement was invalid and that the trial judge was wrong to reschedule the summary judgment hearing from October to September, among other arguments, according to the decision.
The appellate court, however, ruled the agreement was enforceable and said that although the hearing was moved up, the order moving it came more than 75 days before the new hearing date, giving Vogeler plenty of time to prepare.
Vogeler and counsel for Callahan did not respond Friday to a request for comment.
Vogeler represented himself.
Callahan is represented by its own Edward Susolik and Raphael Cung.
The case is Callahan & Blaine v. William K. Vogeler, case number G055912, in the Court of Appeals for the State of California, Fourth Appellate District.
