Marquis & Aurbach, and Terry A. Coffing, Esq., Petitioners v. the Eighth Judicial District Court, in and for The…

Summary

The court held that no appeal lies from a district court judgment reviewing a State Bar fee-dispute arbitration award, so mandamus was the proper vehicle for review. It further held that the contingency-fee agreement was prohibited and unenforceable because the fee depended in part on the amount of alimony embodied in a property-settlement agreement. The court granted the client's writ, vacated the later arbitration award, related orders, and judgment, and dismissed the firm's fee petition as moot. Gibbons, J., dissenting, would have upheld the contingency-fee agreement because the dispute arose after divorce and the client voluntarily chose contingency representation.