Cowen v. Calabrese
| Decision Date | 23 November 1964 |
| Citation | 41 Cal.Rptr. 441,230 Cal.App.2d 870 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 11 A.L.R.3d 903 Manuel E. COWEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Samuel Ray CALABRESE et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 410. |
Brown, Carmack & Brown, Los Angeles, and Ivan W. Packenham, Alhambra, for appellants.
Joseph Lewis, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Manuel E. Cowen secured a judgment against Samuel Ray Calabrese in the amount of $5,583, besides costs, in an action for the reasonable value of legal consultations and advice and necessary expenditures made at the special instance and request of Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Cowen is an attorney who has had 35 years of experience at the bar and is admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of Illinois, the United States District Court at Chicago, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. At the time he rendered the services in question, he was engaged in the general practice of the law in Chicago; from 1932 to 1938 he had been an assistant state's attorney of Cook County assigned to the civil branch, handling tax matters and appeals in the Supreme Court of Illinois; in 1938 he was appointed a Master and Chancellor of the Circuit Court of Cook County; in 1944 he became a Standing Master and Chancellor of the United States District Court at Chicago in which capacity he served for about 17 years hearing patent cases, corporate litigation, and oil cases as well as others; he claims special experience and knowledge of the bankruptcy laws.
In the late fall of 1961, the defendant, Samuel Ray Calabrese, was brought to his office by a mutual friend at which time Mr. Calabrese consulted with Mr. Cowen as an expert on bankruptcy matters; Mr. Calabrese stated that he was having difficulty in a case pending in the District Court of the United States in and for the Southern District of California which included proceedings before a bankruptcy referee at Santa Ana; it involved the financial difficulties of International Marketland, Inc., a corporation, and its proposed supermarket located in Santa Ana; the corporation was then in the bankruptcy court pursuant to Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act. Mr. Calabrese sought and obtained advice during a period beginning December, 1961, and ending March 14, 1962, relative to the proceedings in the federal court in California. The initial services were performed by plaintiff in Illinois; there is no applicable defense as to payment for these services; the parties even agreed that the sum of $2,500 was a fair fee for them.
On May 4, 1962, Mr. Calabrese urged Mr. Cowen by telephone to come to California for the purpose of further aiding in the pending proceedings; Mr. Cowen finally did so under the promise, as he testified, of the payment of his expense and a fair fee.
There seems to be no question about the fact that the reasonable amount of the expenses totaled $583, for which judgment was given in favor of Mr. Cowen, or of the reasonable value of the services rendered by Mr. Cowen while he was in Illinois. The attack on the total judgment of $5,583 is really directed against the balance of $2,500 for legal services allegedly rendered in California. In this connection, two general points are urged on the appeal--one argument questions the finding that there was an express agreement to pay a substantial fee in the event of the success of Mr. Cowen in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Augustine v. Department of Veterans Affairs
...does not restrict the receipt of attorney's fees for services related to federal court proceedings. Cowen v. Calabrese, 230 Cal.App.2d 870, 872-73, 41 Cal.Rptr. 441 (Cal.Ct.App.1964). In Z.A. v. San Bruno Park School District, 165 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.1999), the Ninth Circuit determined that ......
-
Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court
...attorney engaged to render services in bankruptcy proceedings was entitled to collect his fee. (Cowen v. Calabrese (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 870, 872, 41 Cal.Rptr. 441 (Cowen ); but see U.S. Dist. Ct. Local Rules, Northern Dist. Cal., rule 11-1(b); Eastern Dist. Cal., rule 83-180; Central Dist.......
-
Winterrowd v. American General Annuity Ins. Co.
...trained and a member in good standing of the California Bar). California state courts have held similarly. See Cowen v. Calabrese, 230 Cal.App.2d 870, 872, 41 Cal.Rptr. 441 (1964) (indicating that an Illinois attorney was able to collect fees when it "appear[ed] certain" that the lawyer wou......
-
Bluestein v. State Bar
...§ 6000), does not regulate practice before United States Courts. (In re McCue, 211 Cal. 57, 66, 293 P. 47; Cowen v. Celabrese, 230 Cal.App.2d 870, 872--873, 41 Cal.Rptr. 441; see 1 Witkin, Cal.Procedure, Supra, p. 185.) Here, however, we are not concerned with such practice.Also, rule 983, ......
-
The interstate practice of law: are you crossing the line?
...practice in those federal courts from sole office in New York, without associating New York counsel). (33.) Cowen v. Calabrese, 41 Cal. Rptr. 441,44243 (Cal.App. 1964). Half of the work had been done in Illinois, following a visit by the client to the lawyer's office there. The court regard......
-
Multijurisdictional Practice for a Multijurisdictional Profession
...permissible for an out-of-state lawyer to advise clients on federal bankruptcy law, but not state bankruptcy law); Cowen v. Calabrese, 41 Cal. Rptr. 441 (Ct. App. 1964) (holding that it is not the unauthorized practice of law for an out-of-state lawyer to assist a client on matters of feder......