Plaintiff attorney appealed a judgment of dismissal entered by the Superior Court of Orange County, California, after it sustained a demurrer to his first amended complaint without leave to amend. The complaint sought enforcement of an agreement between plaintiff and defendant attorney to divide fees awarded to them as cocounsel representing plaintiffs in an earlier class action lawsuit.

 

The court held that the parties' failure to fully disclose the fee-splitting agreement to the class action court, as required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769, when they petitioned for approval of the class action settlement barred later enforcement of the agreement. Rule 3.769 was designed to protect class members from potential conflicts of interest with their attorneys by requiring the full disclosure of all fee agreements in any application for dismissal or settlement of a class action. What Is a Summary Judgement Motion? in laws. Rule 3.769 would be effectively nullified if attorneys could conceal a fee-splitting agreement from the trial court in seeking approval of a class action settlement and later enforce the agreement in a separate action. As a separate and independent basis for upholding the trial court's action, the court concluded that plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata. Plaintiff was provided a fair opportunity to litigate the fee-splitting agreement before the trial court in the class action. Because the class action court fully and finally determined the attorneys' respective entitlement to fees, plaintiff could not relitigate the issue in the instant proceeding.

 

The court affirmed the judgment.