|
0937 In deciding whether to approve the compromise of a minor's claim, a Superior Court's order that an attorney who previously represented the plaintiff was not entitled to a fee was in excess of the court's jurisdiction, but the attorney's appropriate remedy was to appeal the court's order, and having failed to do so, the attorney is prevented by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel from asserting a claim for the fee in a subsequent proceeding.
BELL v SHINE (Attorney's Lien) 36 CA4 1011 [See: Hansen v Jacobsen 186 CA3 350; Valenta v Regents 231 CA3 1465; Goldberg v SuperCt 23 CA4 1378, T/AT 5/94; Pacific v McConnell 44 C2 715]
|
|
|