[co-author: Victoria Boyko]

In Law Offices of Marc Grossman v. Victor Elementary School District, 2015 DJDAR 8356, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District ruled that the Trope Doctrine did not apply in litigation under the California Public Records Act. The Trope Doctrine states that a law firm that represents itself is not eligible to recover attorney fees.

A law firm represented a student in an action against an elementary school following an incident at the school. The firm pursued a mandamus petition pursuant to Government Code Section 6259, commonly known as the California Public Records Act (CPRA), to obtain documents specifying the amount of money the elementary school district had spent on its defense related to the incident. The Superior Court denied the petition. The law firm then filed an appeal.

The Fourth District granted the petition for writ of mandate and ordered the court to grant the request for information, as well as costs and attorney fees. After remand, the trial court denied the law firm’s request for attorney fees. The law firm filed another appeal, arguing that the court erred when it denied the attorney fees on the grounds an attorney representing himself could not recover such fees (the Trope Doctrine).

The Fourth District reversed the trial court a second time. The court noted that under the CPRA, members of the public can seek judicial enforcement to inspect public records. The court must award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff pursuant to Section 6259(d). Here, the law firm was the prevailing party in the underlying mandamus proceeding and should have received a fee award. The court stated that the Trope Doctrine did not apply as that action was based on CCP § 1717 which permits an award based on an action on a contract. This case was brought pursuant to the CPRA and involved completely separate public policy considerations.