Opinion ID: 2636626
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Viewing the undisputed facts in the light most favorable to the clients, BPK engaged in further substantial litigation.

Text: The clients contend that BPK did not engage in further substantial litigation and is not entitled to the thirty-three percent contingency fee because they claim BPK's efforts were toward mediation, not trial. BPK submitted billing records to show the work it did to prepare for mediation and trial. The clients do not dispute that BPK performed this work; they argue that this work did not qualify as further substantial litigation. The question presented to us is whether, viewing the undisputed facts in the light most favorable to the clients, the court erred in concluding that BPK engaged in further substantial litigation. We conclude it did not. Only substantial work done on the lawsuit after efforts at an early settlement failed would entitle BPK to a thirty-three percent contingency fee, so we look to the steps BPK took after it made the initial settlement offer in October 2005 and before settlement occurred in January 2007. In that time, the superior court found that BPK prepared the case for trial and mediation, both of which the trial court found to be elements of litigation or a legal contest between parties. It reasoned that BPK's preparations for mediation and for trial constituted substantial litigation because the efforts were considerable and because litigation includes more than in-court proceedings and filings. We agree. After the parties modified their fee agreement, BPK attended the depositions of Weiner and Garrison; traveled to Washington to depose Sarp; moved for summary judgment on liability; prepared for and participated in a mediation; hired and interviewed an expert witness on stair construction; met with and talked to physicians; prepared discovery requests and responses; prepared for and attended an independent medical evaluation in Seattle; researched relevant legal issues; participated in several teleconferences; and generally prepared for trial, including talking to experts on damages and preparing trial exhibits. Based on these undisputed facts, it is clear that BPK engaged in further substantial litigation after the early settlement effort failed.