In Alderman v. Hamilton (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1033, the attorney entered into a contingency fee agreement with the clients to represent them in a " 'possible defense of will contest by distant relatives and/or challenge to joint tenancy deed.' " (Alderman, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1036.) The fee agreement violated Business and Professions Code section 6147. The attorney settled the will contest. No litigation was ever initiated regarding the joint tenancy deed, and the attorney spent less than an hour addressing that issue. The property was sold without incident. The clients agreed to compensate the attorney under the fee agreement for his work on the will contest, but they resisted his request for $ 27,750 in fees on the joint tenancy deed issue. (Alderman, at p. 1036.) The trial court found that the attorney was not entitled to any fees on the joint tenancy deed issue. (Alderman, at p. 1035.) On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the clients "had an absolute right to void the contract before or after services were performed. Although the clients waived their right to void the entire contract by agreeing to pay the contingency fee relating to the will contest, the clients were free to and did exercise their absolute right to void the contract provision regarding the joint tenancy property. The clients exercised this right when they denied that the contract was enforceable and refused to pay any moneys to the attorney after the sale of the real property." (Alderman, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1038.) In Alderman, the attorney provided two distinct sets of services, and it was undisputed that the distinct services relating to the joint property deed amounted to less than an hour of the attorney's time.