Search for: "Doe v. ATTORNEY" Results 81 - 100 of 36,650
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Dec 2010, 6:05 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
This ruling re-examines the Second Circuit's seminal attorneys' fees decision, New York State Association for Retarded Children v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 12:13 am by John Diekman
Practice point: A party must pay his or her own attorney's fee unless an award is authorized by an agreement between the parties, by statute, or by court rule.Student note: The plaintiff cannot recover an award of an attorney's fee under the New York Civil Rights Law, which does not provide for such relief, pursuant to § 47-b[1]).Case: Degregorio v. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 3:45 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The Court in Jones v Wright (2007 WL 2247199, 1 [App Term 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]), which is cited by the Matos Court, stated: Indeed, while an attorney's failure to comply with the provision does not entitle a client to a return of legal fees where the services have already been rendered, a client may seek to recover a fee already paid if it appears that the attorney did not properly earn said fee [citing Beech v Gerald B. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 3:41 am by PaulKostro
Although an attorney is entitled to be paid for his services, he is not permitted to threaten to withhold those services and, in effect, abandon the client, if he does not receive his fee. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 2:38 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  Client, who does not have other attorneys ready to go, is unable to bring the action within the statute of limitations. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 4:43 am
While a plaintiff's unilateral belief does not confer upon him or her the status of client (see Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d at 283), an attorney-client relationship may exist in the absence of a formal retainer agreement (see e.g. [read post]
14 Feb 2010, 5:00 pm
The case is Stewart v. [read post]
13 Dec 2014, 7:21 am by Mark S. Humphreys
The policy does not cover items held as inventory for the purpose of sale. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 10:08 am by PaulKostro
Div., A-5951-08T1, November 30, 2010: “[T]he trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction in a matrimonial action does not normally encompass the power to adjudicate financial disputes that may crop up between a litigant and the litigant’s attorney. [read post]