Since 1982, California law has required contingent fee agreements between a lawyer and a "plaintiff" to meet certain tests. 

Ten years after the law took effect, a California court of appeals held that the law doesn't apply "outside the litigation context."  Franklin v. Appell, 8 Cal. App. 4th 875, 892 (Cal. App. 1992) (involving

California law favors class actions.  So much so that Golden State courts have struck down class-action bans that show up in consumer contracts whether they apply to lawsuits, Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 113 P.2d 1100 (Cal. 2005), or arbitration cases, America Online v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699

The wacky world of litigating arbitration issues keeps getting wackier.

Witness today's Ninth Circuit ruling that, no, by golly, a party needn't include in its complaint an explanation of why it doesn't have to arbitrate. 

The defendant, Fastbucks, which franchises "payday loan" stores in California and elsewhere, including its home state, Texas, urged that Golden

The Supreme Court of California ruled last week that the Golden State's antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act, allows an award of overcharge damages to people who don't buy directly from a price-fixer.  Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., No. S166435 (Cal. July 12, 2010).

The case involved pharmacies that alleged price-fixing by drug manufacturers.  The

Does a contingent fee give lawyers too much control over public nuisance cases? 

Or can public entities control the lawyers enough to prevent abuse of the governmental power they wield?

The Supreme Court of California heard argument on those questions this week (finally).  Kimberley Kralowec at The UCL Practitioner gives us a blow-by-blow.

The Rhode