California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Summers v. Newman, 20 Cal.4th 1021, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 303, 978 P.2d 1225 (Cal. 1999):
Because the issue regarding the payment of fees to an employee's attorney when the judgment is insufficient to provide any residual proceeds to the employee is not presented by this case, it is unnecessary to address the issue here and I do not believe we should do so. Furthermore, as I shall explain, I disagree with the substance of the plurality's dictum on this discrete point. In my view, this reading of the statute is inconsistent with the statutory purpose we recognized in Quinn v. State of California (1975) 15 Cal.3d 162, 170, 124 Cal.Rptr. 1, 539 P.2d 761, of "assuring the worker that he can obtain an attorney by guaranteeing that attorney priority in the event that the judgment recovered should not suffice both to recompense him and to satisfy the employer's claim."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.