Opinion ID: 1036404
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Co-Counsels’ Services

Text: Alioto does not cite any case law in support of his claim the jury should have been allowed to consider co-counsels’ services in determining a reasonable fee. He cites only to § 6147, saying because it allows him to collect a reasonable fee in place of the - 24 - contractual fee and because the Fee Agreement allows him to retain co-counsel, the reasonable fee should include co-counsel’s work. We disagree. Quantum meruit is an ex contractu remedy. It measures the reasonable value of services rendered without regard to the contract, not because of it. See Advanced Choices, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health Servs., 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 470, 480 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). It does not follow that a reasonable fee has to include co-counsels’ work because the contractual fee did. Even looking to the Fee Agreement, however, it merely says Alioto is permitted to retain counsel to assist him and any additional counsel will not increase the amount of Hoiles’s fee. It says nothing about how Alioto intended to pay co-counsel. Because Alioto has not provided any further argument, we decline to address the issue further. The court correctly reinstated the jury’s quantum meruit verdict. D. Alioto’s Fraud and Misrepresentation Claims Alioto also raised fraud and misrepresentation claims. He agreed, however, these claims only survived if the Fee Agreement is valid. AFFIRMED. Entered by the Court: Terrence L. O’Brien