The following excerpt is from Braden v. Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry Local 38 Convalescent Trust Fund, 967 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1992):
Defendants claim that the district court abused its discretion because it did not consider the contingency fee arrangement the plaintiffs' attorneys had with the plaintiffs. However, review of contingency fee arrangements is not mandatory. See Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 93-96 (1989).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.