Beverly Hills, CaliforniaMonday–Friday · 10am–5pm
California State Bar #81160 · Active323-655-0961

Home/Appellate Record

Appellate Depth

Published decisions and appellate work.

Selected public appellate matters in which Philip Kaufler is identified as counsel, with readable summaries and source links.

The Record

Appellate work is part of the practice, not an afterthought.

The issues preserved at trial, the reasoning in the record and the way a dispute is framed can matter long after judgment. The appellate record below provides source-backed examples across several areas of California law.

2016California Supreme Court

People v. Hubbard

California Supreme Court opinion addressing Penal Code § 424. The opinion lists Hillel Chodos and Philip Kaufler for the defendant/appellant and identifies Kaufler as counsel who argued in the Supreme Court.

Background

Jeffrey Hubbard served as superintendent of the Beverly Hills Unified School District. The prosecution arose from compensation decisions involving an increased automobile allowance and a $20,000 stipend for a district employee. The central statutory question concerned California Penal Code section 424 and the degree of authority over public funds required before a public officer can be held liable under that provision.

The legal question

The case asked whether section 424 applies broadly to every public officer, or only to an officer who is actually charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer or disbursement of public money. The distinction mattered because the challenged payments required Board of Education approval and Hubbard did not have unilateral authority to authorize them.

The court’s holding

The California Supreme Court concluded that public-office status alone is not enough. Section 424 requires actual authority that gives the officer a material degree of control over the disposition of public funds. The opinion addressed the statutory reach of the offense and the authority the prosecution must establish.

Philip Kaufler’s role

The published opinion identifies Hillel Chodos and Philip Kaufler as counsel for Hubbard and identifies Kaufler as counsel who argued before the California Supreme Court. The related client-supplied coverage and the public opinion are linked from this record.

Read public opinion Read related article Open full case page →
2014California Court of Appeal

Chodos v. Borman

Published attorney-fee decision addressing the use of a multiplier in a quantum meruit action.

Background

Chodos v. Borman arose from a dispute over attorney compensation following dissolution and related Marvin litigation. Attorney Hillel Chodos sought the reasonable value of his legal services after the underlying matters ended and a jury ultimately applied a five-times multiplier to the claimed hourly rate, producing a $7.8 million fee award.

The fee issue

The appeal focused on whether the multiplier was permissible in a quantum meruit recovery. The client-supplied case summary explains that Chodos had not undertaken the representation under a valid contingency agreement that shifted the risk of nonpayment to counsel, a circumstance commonly associated with enhanced fee awards.

The court’s holding

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for recalculation of the reasonable fee. It concluded that the multiplier was not justified under the governing lodestar principles and that the resulting award was excessive and inequitable on the record presented.

Philip Kaufler’s role

Philip Kaufler represented Chodos in the fee dispute. The site includes both the appellate case summary and the client-supplied Daily Journal coverage discussing the underlying fee controversy.

Read public opinion Read related article Open full case page →
2004California Court of Appeal

Estate of Lowrie

Published in part. The court held that the granddaughter had standing to bring the elder-abuse civil action and affirmed the judgment.

Background

Estate of Lowrie arose from allegations that Sheldon Lowrie neglected, isolated and financially abused his elderly mother. The granddaughter, Lynelle Goodreau, challenged conduct that included alleged manipulation of the estate plan, isolation from family members, delayed medical care and transfers of property.

The standing issue

After the elder’s death, the defendant argued that the granddaughter lacked standing to pursue the elder-abuse claim because she was not the person formally serving as executor or trustee. The dispute therefore required the Court of Appeal to interpret who may succeed to an elder’s claim under the Elder Abuse Act and related Probate Code provisions.

The court’s holding

The Court of Appeal rejected the narrow standing argument. It reasoned that a restrictive interpretation could allow an alleged abuser to benefit from the conduct being challenged. Because the granddaughter had a contingent interest in the estate and a strong incentive to pursue the claim, the court held that she had standing under the statutory framework. The judgment was affirmed.

Philip Kaufler’s role

The client-supplied coverage and published opinion identify Philip Kaufler as counsel for Goodreau. The site also includes the related news coverage and public opinion for readers who want the fuller factual and legal context.

Read public opinion Read related article Open full case page →
2003California Court of Appeal

BGJ Associates, LLC v. Wilson

Published decision concerning an attorney-client business transaction, professional-conduct rules and undue influence.

Background

BGJ Associates v. Wilson involved an oral joint venture connected to the purchase of real property. An attorney who had represented a client in an easement dispute entered the venture with that client and another participant. The later dispute raised the professional-responsibility rules governing business transactions between lawyers and clients.

The professional-responsibility issue

California’s rules required written disclosure of the transaction’s terms, written advice that the client seek independent counsel, and written client consent. The trial court found those safeguards had not been satisfied and also found that the circumstances amounted to undue influence.

The court’s holding

The Court of Appeal affirmed the result, explaining that the transaction was voidable by the client. The decision emphasized that the required disclosures and consent protections are substantive safeguards when a lawyer enters a business transaction with a client.

Philip Kaufler’s role

The published opinion identifies the Law Offices of Philip Kaufler and Philip Kaufler among counsel for the defendants/appellants. The public opinion is linked from this record.

Read public opinion Read related article Open full case page →
2000California Court of Appeal

Pratt v. Gursey, Schneider & Co.

Published decision concerning the enforceability of an express waiver of appellate rights following binding arbitration.

Background

Deborah Pratt retained Gursey, Schneider & Co. for accounting services in connection with a dissolution proceeding. The later professional-negligence dispute was submitted to binding arbitration, and the parties signed a stipulation that expressly waived the right to appeal from the arbitrator’s award, any judgment entered on the award, or any related order.

The appellate issue

After the arbitrator issued an award in Pratt’s favor and the trial court confirmed it, the accounting defendants appealed. Pratt moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the parties had expressly waived appellate review in their arbitration stipulation.

The court’s holding

The Court of Appeal enforced the waiver and dismissed the appeal. Although the arbitration papers contained references associated with both judicial and contractual arbitration, the court held that the waiver language covering “any judgment” or “any order” was sufficiently explicit and was not undermined by that ambiguity.

Philip Kaufler’s role

The published opinion identifies the Law Offices of Philip Kaufler and Philip Kaufler as counsel for Pratt, the plaintiff/respondent. The related Daily Journal coverage on the underlying arbitration is also included in Cases & Articles.

Read public opinion Read related article Open full case page →
1991California Supreme Court

Adams v. Murakami

California Supreme Court decision addressing the evidentiary prerequisite for punitive damages and the burden of proof.

Background

Adams v. Murakami was a California Supreme Court case arising from a personal-injury action in which the jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages. No evidence of the defendant physician’s financial condition had been introduced at trial, even though the punitive-damages instruction directed the jury to consider financial condition.

The questions before the court

The Supreme Court addressed two related questions: whether meaningful evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is a prerequisite to sustaining a punitive-damages award, and, if it is, which party bears the burden of introducing that evidence.

The court’s holding

The court answered both questions in the affirmative from the plaintiff’s perspective: meaningful evidence of the defendant’s financial condition is required, and the plaintiff bears the burden of producing it. The court reasoned that financial-condition evidence is necessary for meaningful review of whether punitive damages are excessive and for determining whether the award serves punishment and deterrence without becoming financially destructive.

Philip Kaufler’s role

The published opinion lists Philip Kaufler among counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. The linked public opinion contains the court’s complete analysis and separate opinions.

Read public opinion Open full case page →
Legal research and appellate case preparation

Why the Record Matters

Appeals begin with what happened below.

Appellate review depends on the issues raised, rulings made and record developed in the trial court. That is why the practice keeps preservation and appellate positioning in view during litigation.

Discuss an appellate matter →

Selected Themes

Questions reflected in the appellate record.

01

Standing & elder abuse

Estate of Lowrie addressed who may pursue elder-abuse claims after an elder’s death and how statutory purpose informs standing.

02

Public funds & statutory reach

People v. Hubbard involved the scope of Penal Code section 424 and the authority required for public-funds liability.

03

Professional responsibility

BGJ Associates v. Wilson addressed disclosures, independent advice and written consent when a lawyer enters a business transaction with a client.

Appellate Consultation

Need experienced appellate counsel?

Contact the Beverly Hills office to discuss the procedural posture and record.

Contact the Office