In Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1378, the guardians ad litem for three children contracted with Goldberg, a chiropractor, giving him a lien on the recovery, but agreeing to pay his fees regardless of the outcome of the case. At the hearing to approve a compromise, the guardians sought to reduce Goldberg's fees. Goldberg contested the court's jurisdiction to adjudicate his fees. Nonetheless, the trial court purported to determine the reasonable value of the fees as part of the order approving the settlement. Division One of this district issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate the order. It construed section 3601 to empower the court to determine and authorize payment of reasonable expenses to Goldberg, even though he was not a party to the action. ( Goldberg, supra, 23 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1382.) But our colleagues concluded that such power did not give the court jurisdiction to decide what a claimant "deserves," i.e., "the reasonable value of a practitioner's services." ( Id., at p. 1383.) Instead, it held "the reasonableness and propriety of the contract amount is another question entirely" and must be decided in a separate action. (Ibid.) "In short, section 3601 is exclusively concerned with allowing expenses to be paid from the minor's settlement. It has no effect on the claims . . . against the parents or lawyers under the contracts or otherwise." (Ibid.)