In Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, the California Supreme Court summarized the longstanding governing law regarding misconduct of counsel. "'Generally, to preserve for appeal an instance of misconduct of counsel in the presence of the jury, an objection must have been lodged at trial.' In addition to objecting, a litigant faced with opposing counsel's misconduct must also 'move for a mistrial or seek a curative admonition' unless the misconduct is so persistent that an admonition would be inadequate to cure the resulting prejudice . This is so because 'one of the primary purposes of admonition at the beginning of an improper course of argument is to avoid repetition of the remarks and thus obviate the necessity of a new trial.' The rule is the same for civil and criminal cases. " (Id. at pp. 794-795.) The Court described an appropriate method of apportionment when the insured's attorney was working on a contingency: "To determine the percentage of the legal fees attributable to the contract recovery, the trial court should determine the total number of hours an attorney spent on the case and then determine how many hours were spent working exclusively on the contract recovery. Hours spent working on issues jointly related to both the tort and contract should be apportioned, with some hours assigned to the contract and some to the tort. This latter figure, added to the hours spent on the contract alone, when divided by the total number of hours worked, should provide the appropriate percentage." (Id. at p. 812.)