In Roa v. Lodi Medical Group, Inc. (1985) 37 Cal. 3d 920, a medical malpractice action, some of the defendants settled with the plaintiffs, and the trial court was called upon to approve the settlement. The plaintiffs asked that their attorneys receive contingent fees in the percentage-of-the-proceeds amount agreed upon in their retainer agreement--which was more than allowed by Business and Professions Code section 6146. The trial court noted that the work performed was worth the higher amount, but refused to grant the request, concluding that it was prohibited by law from doing so. The plaintiffs appealed from this decision, contending the law was unconstitutional, and the defendants moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the plaintiffs were not the parties aggrieved by the law. The defendants argued that only the plaintiffs' attorneys were aggrieved by order limiting attorney's fees, and thus were the only proper party to prosecute the appeal. The California Supreme Court rejected the defendants' argument, holding that, in fact, the plaintiffs, rather than the plaintiffs' attorneys, could maintain the appeal because the plaintiffs were aggrieved by the potential effect of the limitation on their attorneys' incentive to pursue additional recovery against the remaining defendants who are not covered by the settlement.