{"id":112,"date":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=112"},"modified":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","slug":"chong-v-mardirossian-akaragian-b341157-ratification-contingency-fee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=112","title":{"rendered":"Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP \u2014 Client’s Ratification of Unauthorized Settlement Triggers Full Contingency Fee"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal, Division Five<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-08<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B341157<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Attorney-Client Relationship, Ratification, Contingency Fees, Settlement Authority, Agency Law<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Christopher Chong was catastrophically injured in 2016 when a truck struck his Porsche, which he had parked in the fast lane of the 134 Freeway and fallen asleep in. Acting through his parents (who had powers of attorney), Chong retained the Mardirossian law firm in 2018 to pursue products-liability and negligence claims. The retainer agreement provided for a 40 percent contingency fee, with a higher rate after the first year, plus a referral share to a family-friend attorney. The retainer let Chong fire the firm at any time but provided that, on discharge, only the reasonable value of services rendered to date would be owed.<\/p>\n

The firm litigated the case for years. As trial approached, the prospects against the Porsche entities and the truck driver’s employer became uncertain. The firm negotiated a settlement, and Chong’s parents \u2014 acting under the powers of attorney \u2014 provisionally agreed. Chong later contended that the firm had not obtained his proper authorization for the settlement and discharged the firm. He then nevertheless executed the settlement himself.<\/p>\n

The firm sued for its full contingency fee. The trial court granted summary judgment to the firm, awarding the contingency fee plus prejudgment interest. Chong appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal affirmed. Under California agency law, an attorney-client relationship is a principal-agent relationship; a settlement entered without client authority is unauthorized. But a principal can ‘ratify’ an unauthorized agent act, retroactively converting it into an authorized act, so long as the ratification is ‘truly voluntary’ \u2014 not the product of duress, misrepresentation, or an obligation to mitigate the loss the agent caused.<\/p>\n

Applying that framework, the court held that Chong’s signing of the settlement after firing the firm was a true ratification. Chong was free to rescind the settlement on lack-of-consent grounds and was not legally compelled to execute it to avoid loss. He chose to take the deal. That ratification reactivated the firm’s contractual entitlement to its agreed contingency fee, not merely quantum meruit.<\/p>\n

The court also affirmed the denial of Chong’s request to continue the summary-judgment hearing and upheld the prejudgment-interest award.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n