Court of Appeal Rejects Attorney Fee Award for Lawyer Representing Spouse

A recent California Court of Appeal decision clarifies an issue that occasionally arises in litigation involving attorney spouses: when can a party recover attorney fees if the legal work was performed by their husband or wife?

In Honchariw v. PMF CA REIT (2025), the Court of Appeal held that the key question is not whether a true attorney-client relationship existed between the spouses. Instead, the inquiry turns on whether the litigation involved a community property interest, which would make the attorney effectively self-represented under California law.

The ruling resulted in the reversal of a $251,200 attorney fee award, even though the plaintiffs prevailed on the merits of their underlying claim.

How the Fee Dispute Arose

Nicholas Honchariw, a California attorney, represented both himself and his wife Sharon in a lawsuit against a lender. The dispute involved a late-payment penalty imposed through an increased interest rate, which the plaintiffs argued was unlawful.

The Honchariws ultimately recovered $261,489 in damages, and a Retired Court of Appeal Justice later awarded more than $251,000 in attorney fees under a contractual fee-shifting provision.

On appeal, however, the lender challenged whether the couple could recover attorney fees for legal services performed by Nicholas Honchariw on behalf of both spouses.

The Legal Framework: Trope v. Katz

The dispute centered on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Trope v. Katz (1996).

In Trope, the court held that an attorney who represents himself in propria persona cannot recover attorney fees, even when a contract provides for fee shifting. The reasoning was rooted in fairness: allowing lawyers to recover fees for representing themselves would create two classes of self-represented litigants—lawyers and non-lawyers.

As the Supreme Court explained, attorney fees typically refer to compensation actually paid or owed for legal services. A lawyer representing himself incurs no such expense.

Conflicting Court of Appeal Decisions

Before this case, some appellate courts had allowed fee awards where an attorney represented a spouse, provided a “true attorney-client relationship” existed.

For example:

• Rickley v. Goodfriend (2012) suggested courts should determine whether the spouse consulted the lawyer in a professional capacity.
• Gogal v. Deng (2024) similarly focused on whether the spouses’ relationship in the litigation resembled a traditional attorney-client relationship.

Under those decisions, courts examined factors such as whether the spouses had separate interests or whether the non-lawyer spouse played a meaningful role in the litigation.

The Court’s New Approach

Presiding Justice Lee Edmon rejected that framework.

The court held that the relevant question under Trope is not the formality of the attorney-client relationship, but whether the litigant is effectively self-represented.

According to the court, when litigation involves a community property asset, the attorney spouse’s legal work benefits the marital community as a whole. In that situation, the attorney’s labor is itself a community asset, meaning the spouses are effectively representing their own shared interests.

Because of that, the court concluded both spouses were self-represented, making an attorney fee award improper.

Why the Fee Award Was Reversed

Although Sharon Honchariw stated she had “retained” her husband as counsel, the court noted that neither spouse alleged any separate property interest in the disputed asset.

As a result, the litigation concerned a community property interest, bringing the case squarely within the rule of Trope.

The Court of Appeal therefore struck the $251,200 attorney fee award while leaving the $261,489 damages award intact.

Contractual Fee Arguments Rejected

The Honchariws attempted to avoid Trope by arguing the fees were awarded under Code of Civil Procedure §§1021 and 1033.5, rather than Civil Code §1717, the statute addressed in Trope.

The court rejected that distinction.

Justice Edmon explained that the ordinary meaning of “attorney’s fees” remains the same across these statutes: compensation a party actually pays or becomes obligated to pay for legal services.

Because a self-represented attorney pays no such compensation, the rule applies regardless of which fee-shifting statute is invoked.

Key Takeaways for Litigators

This decision reinforces several important principles:

• Attorneys representing themselves generally cannot recover attorney fees.
• Representation by an attorney spouse does not automatically avoid the self-representation rule.
• Courts will focus on whether the litigation concerns community property interests.
• Fee recovery may still be possible if the non-attorney spouse has a separate property interest in the claim.

The ruling also highlights how procedural nuances surrounding fee entitlement can dramatically affect the ultimate value of a case.

Bottom Line

Even successful litigants can lose substantial recovery if attorney fee rules are misunderstood. The difference between recoverable and unrecoverable fees often turns on technical issues involving representation, statutory interpretation, and marital property law.

For lawyers handling complex litigation where fee entitlement may significantly affect case value, careful strategic planning is essential.

Sharing is caring: