<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: California high court OKs public contingency fees	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/07/california-high-court-oks-public-contingency-fees/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/07/california-high-court-oks-public-contingency-fees/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:14:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: PointOfLaw Forum		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/07/california-high-court-oks-public-contingency-fees/comment-page-1/#comment-96099</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PointOfLaw Forum]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:14:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=18559#comment-96099</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;California Supreme Court decides Santa Clara v. Superior Court...&lt;/strong&gt;

On Monday, the California Supreme Court endorsed the corruption of local government hiring contingent-fee lawyers to prosecute cases, notwithstanding its earlier precedent forbidding such a conflict of interest, siding with an appellate court that had ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>California Supreme Court decides Santa Clara v. Superior Court&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>On Monday, the California Supreme Court endorsed the corruption of local government hiring contingent-fee lawyers to prosecute cases, notwithstanding its earlier precedent forbidding such a conflict of interest, siding with an appellate court that had &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
