Norman H. Pine

Los Angeles County bus driver Garey L. Estelle had a problem — a condition was causing significant pain in his leg. The county’s transportation fleet contained buses with large and small cabs, and Estelle found that the pain intensified when he drove vehicles with a smaller cab, so he requested the larger buses when he embarked on longer routes.

“He was writing letters to them saying, ‘not only is this painful and uncomfortable for me, but it’s dangerous. It’s dangerous to me, it’s dangerous to the kids I’m driving and it’s dangerous to whoever might be out on the road while I’m driving in pain and distraction,’” said Pine, a certified appellate specialist who focuses heavily on plaintiffs employment law.

His request was refused and, eventually, Estelle was dismissed. His case went to trial, and a jury awarded Estelle $625,000 as damages in June 2015. Later, the judge ordered Estelle’s trial counsel $752,926, including a 1.5 multiplier.

Both items are now on appeal, and Pine — whose practice is dedicated exclusively to civil appeals, with a focus on employment law, personal injury, entertainment law, business litigation and land use — is representing both matters. Estelle v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, B268085 and B269626 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist., filed Oct. 23, 2015 and Jan. 15, 2016).

Part of the appeal says it was improper to have a multiplier.

“I think a multiplier is the single most important thing we have in employment law,” Pine explained. “Without a reasonable assurance that the court system will have your back, most lawyers who do contingencies are going to say, ‘I should just do hourly work, and I’ll get paid and I don’t have to worry about the risk of never getting paid.’ The contingency fee multiplier is what allows the system to work.”

Protecting the use of multipliers in the legal system “is some of the most satisfying work one can do, in my mind, because it’s such an important battle,” added Pine.

“I realize it’s the attorneys who get the money, so to speak, but it’s really the clients and society that benefit from contingency fee arrangements because without them, the laws that we all think are so important, [or are] basic civil rights-type laws, would never be enforced. I take particular pride in working on cases that help preserve the right to a reasonable multiplier, as well as a reasonable attorney’s fee.”

— Michele Chandler