Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP

In Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 141, the plaintiff sued attorneys who handled a class action (in which the plaintiff was not a party) based on the attorneys' handling of the settlement proceeds. In contrast to the instant case, where the complaint is based solely on Shenoi Koes' claim that its attorney fee lien was not paid as part of the settlement agreement, the complaint in Thayer made allegations regarding the defendant attorneys' conduct during litigation and settlement of the class action. For example, the complaint alleged that, during the litigation, the plaintiff's spouse (a "very experienced attorney") informed the defendant attorneys of an entity whom they had not named. (Thayer, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 145.) The complaint further alleged that the plaintiff's spouse was not given the right to make "'"substantive decisions in the handling" of the actions,'" and that he asked for but did not receive either a breakdown of the disbursements and costs or a list of owners who had not approved the settlement. (Id. at pp. 148-149.) The plaintiff further complained of decisions to hold the settlement funds in trust and to require clients to affirmatively opt out of a "Fraud Fund" to be used in related criminal proceedings. (Id. at p. 150.) The gravamen of the complaint therefore was not merely the plaintiff's failure to receive payment as a result of the settlement. Instead, the complaint was "'based on'" how the defendant attorneys conducted the settlement proceedings. (Id. at p. 154.)