Case No. A170497
The court held that, under California probate law, a contingency-fee agreement creates only a private claim against the attorney's former clients and does not confer a lien or equitable interest in the trust estate, so an attorney may not sue a successor trustee, the trustee's counsel, or the counsel.
Date Filed: August 27, 2025
Case Name: Case No. A170497
Case Number: A170497
Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four
The Court holds that an attorney who was paid on a contingency basis cannot sue a successor trustee, the trustee’s counsel, or the counsel’s law firm to enforce that fee when the trust assets have already been distributed; the fee agreement creates a private claim against the former beneficiaries, not a lien or equitable interest in the trust estate. Accordingly, the demurrer to the attorney’s claims for intentional interference, conversion, and money‑had‑and‑received is affirmed. This decision underscores that, under California probate law, a lawyer’s right to contingency fees is enforceable only against his own clients and does not give rise to a cause of action against third‑party trustees or their attorneys.
This case summary was prepared for educational purposes. For the authoritative version, please refer to the full opinion or the official California Courts website.