Moran v. Harris
California Court of Appeal
131 Cal. App. 3d 913 (1982)
- Written by Gonzalo Rodriguez, JD
Facts
In December 1971, Muriel Joseph contacted her attorney, John Moran (plaintiff) to discuss a potential negligence action against a hospital. Because Moran lacked experience in the medical-malpractice field, Joseph asked Moran to help her find an attorney to handle the lawsuit. Moran chose Gordon Von Kalinowski, and in January 1972, Von Kalinowski agreed to split attorney fees with Moran. For medical reasons, Von Kalinowski was unable to continue representing Joseph. In 1973, Wesley Harris (defendant) found out about Von Kalinowski’s issues and offered to take over the representation and to be bound by the terms of the agreement with Moran. Harris took over the representation in 1974, and by 1975 Harris had settled the case, resulting in attorney’s fees of $226,996.37. Harris refused to pay Moran his share, and Moran sued to enforce the agreement. Bound by the California Court of Appeal’s 1978 decision in Altschul v. Sayble, which interpreted a November 1972 amendment to the Rules of Professional Conduct and held that referral-fee agreements were unenforceable as contrary to public judgment, the superior court ruled in favor of Harris. In 1979, a rule change reversed the 1972 amendment, thus ending the prohibition on referral-fee agreements. Moran appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wiener, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
