People v. Pinedo

In People v. Pinedo (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1403, the court held that a contingency fee paid to the victim's attorney who obtained a civil settlement from the defendant's insurance carrier was properly included in the restitution amount ordered. Upholding the restitution order, the court stated: "The test is not whether the victim's legal fees arose directly from the criminal case, but whether they were a 'determined economic loss incurred as a result of the defendant's criminal conduct.' Appellant's drinking and driving directly caused the lost wages, medical bills and property damage covered by the settlement. The legal expense incurred by the victim to recover these damages from appellant's insurance carrier was 'proper, necessary, and a logical result of appellant's criminal conduct.'" (Id. at pp. 1405-1406.)