The Law Firm of Fox and Fox, a General Partnership Composed of Frank O. Fox and Claire S. Fox vs. Miguel Arteaga

Case Background

On June 29, 2022, the Law Firm of Fox and Fox filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Miguel Arteaga after he failed to pay the legal fees as per an agreement signed between them. The case was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judge Thomas D. Long presided over the jury trial. [Case number: 22STCV21229]

Cause

The Law Firm of Fox and Fox, a general partnership made up of Frank O. Fox and Claire S. Fox, filed a lawsuit against Miguel Arteaga. The firm alleged that on September 29, 2021, a written agreement was established between Frank O. Fox and Miguel Arteaga. Later, on June 9, 2022, the Defendant breached this agreement. The Plaintiff represented the Defendant in two legal matters: a dissolution case filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 21STFL09806, and a restraining order case, case number 21IWR000867. As a result of this representation, the Defendant accrued fees and costs totaling $27,407.51 by June 9, 2022.

Damages

The Plaintiff experienced damages that were directly caused by the Defendant's breach of the agreement. As of June 9, 2022, the Plaintiff suffered damages amounting to $27,407.51 for representing the Defendant in both legal matters. The Plaintiff requested a judgment for the costs of the suit, along with relief that is fair, just, and equitable. The Plaintiff sought damages of $27,407.51, interest on those damages at a rate of 10 percent per year from June 9, 2022, and attorney's fees, either a specific amount or as proven in court.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff(s): Law Firm of Fox and Fox a general partnership made up of Frank O. Fox and Claire S. Fox
  • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Pro se

• Defendant(s): Miguel Arteaga
  • Counsel for Defendant(s): Bruce J. Guttman

Claims

The Plaintiff alleged breach of contract. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant became indebted to them over the past two years. This debt arose from work, labor, services, and materials that the Plaintiff provided at the Defendant's special request. The Defendant had promised to pay the Plaintiff for these services. The total amount owed was $27,407.51.

Defense

The defense argued that the claimed fees were unconscionable and violated California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.5, based on several facts. First, the Plaintiff allegedly engaged in overreaching when negotiating the fee. Second, the amount of the fee was excessive and unreasonable compared to the value of the services performed. Additionally, the defense noted that Plaintiff possessed a high degree of sophistication in negotiating family law fee agreements, unlike Defendant. They pointed out that the nature and length of the professional relationship were minor relative to the benefits received by the Defendant. The defense asserted that the Defendant had the right to offset the retainer fee and costs already paid. Additionally, they claimed that the Plaintiff was not competent in representing the Defendant. They argued that the fees claimed were inflated. The defense noted that many billed services could have been completed by non-attorney support staff, resulting in overbilling. Moreover, the defense stated that some of the fees claimed were neither reasonable nor necessary. They emphasized that the fees outweighed the benefits the Defendant gained from the representation. The defense highlighted the Plaintiff's failure to keep the Defendant informed about the increasing amount of services charged. Finally, they criticized the Plaintiff for not providing a reasonable estimate of the fees to be incurred for the services rendered.

Jury Verdict

On July 5, 2024, Thomas D. Long entered a judgment consistent with the verdict.

Court Documents:

Available upon request