Facts

Dan Siegel and Anne B. Weills of Siegel & Yee represented Dr. Nimachia Hernandez in her case against The Regents of the University of California for wrongful termination due to ethnicity and disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate her disability. The jury ruled in favor of Dr. Hernandez and awarded her $266,347. Siegel & Yee obtained an amount of $650,841, which they claim the Court awarded them for fees and costs.

Dr. Hernandez claimed that defendants violated their fiduciary duty to her, engaged in conflicts of interests, and improperly obtained the fee award from The Regents. She also claimed that she was entitled to the interest on the fee award and to the costs awarded by the Court.

Defendants filed a cross-complaint.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contends that plaintiff recovered taxable earnings for the 3 years it took to get to trial in the amount of $266,347. Despite the fact that the defendants no longer represented the plaintiff on appeal, the defendants obtained a check made out to both Siegel & Yee and the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims the defendants placed plaintiff's name on the back of the check. The check provided for $623,907 in fees and $34,694 in interest. Plaintiff asserts that when she found out about the receipt of the check, she instantly objected to the recipient bank, Wells Fargo, but only after, the firm had deposited it. This left Wells Fargo with a quandary, which they resolved by freezing the funds and suing for interpleader. Subsequently, on Aug. 3, 2012, the firm obtained full possession of the funds. Plaintiff demanded a full accounting of the funds without receiving an adequate response.

Plaintiff further contends that because the judgment specifically awarded attorney fees to Hernandez, she is entitled to the interest on the attorney fee award that had accumulated during the appeal. Siegel's fee agreement specifically provides for a lien for fees and costs against the judgment, but plaintiff contends, Siegel has never asserted any case law to the effect that a lienholder, in the absence of contractual agreement, accrues interest on a lien amount, during the pending of an appeal. The fee agreement makes no mention of interest.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contend that they performed well in the underlying litigation although they shared Dr. Hernandez's disappointment that the jury award was not higher. They argued that the fee award, the interest on the fee award, and the costs belonged to them under the retainer agreement.

On the cross-complaint, they argued that Dr. Hernandez had wrongfully interfered with their right to collect the fee award and sought damages of $1 against her.

Settlement Discussions

Defendants proposed that the parties mutually dismissed their claims and waive costs. Plaintiff declined the offer.

Damages

Dr. Hernandez argued that she was entitled to $34,694 as the interest on the fee award; general damages and punitive damages of at least $140,000. Cross-complainants requested $1 in damages. According to plaintiff, defendants initially demanded $650,841 in their cross-complaint and changed it to $1 in the middle of trial.

Result

The Court denied plaintiff's claims and awarded cross-complainant damages in the requested amount of $1. Judge George C. Hernandez Jr. found that the retainer agreement was valid and enforceable, that defendants advanced all costs and were entitled to reimbursement of costs plus the fees awarded and the interest on them. The Court also found that Dr. Hernandez breached the retainer agreement by interfering with Siegel & Yee's right to recover the attorney fees.

Other Information

Plaintiff intends on filing an appeal. FILING DATE: July 21, 2011.