In addition, the company has included a «Put our money where our mouth is» clause in the pricing agreement. It was obvious that the city could have obtained a comparison with PepsiCo for $10 million of preliminary proceedings. As a result, the company agreed that if it tried the case and received a judgment for less than $10 million, the company would reimburse the city for all the reduced monthly costs that the City had paid to the business (the $20,000 per month in fees). Creative fee agreements do not apply only to the applicant`s bar. The company and the customer may agree that the company will have a conditional interest on the basis of a successful defense judgment. Suppose the customer agrees to pay the company 75% of its regular hourly rates. In exchange for the 25% discount on the company`s regular hourly rates, the customer agrees to pay the company a conditional fee of 25% on the amount that is less than $1.1 million. For example, if the parties stood out and the complainant received $1 million, the company would receive a conditional tax of $25,000 (25% of $100,000). Or if the complainant received a final judgment of $US 500,000, then the company would receive a conditional tax of $150,000 (25% of $600,000). If the complainant did not receive a cash bonus, the company would receive a conditional fee of $275,000 (25% of $1.1 million). For example, in Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, a dismissed employee hired a lawyer on the basis of a contingency tax to represent her in a lawsuit against her former employer. (Id.

on 910-911.) When the complaint ended in an adverse judgment to the employees, counsel agreed to represent her on appeal, on the condition that she accept a settlement offer of at least $150,000. (Id. on 910-912.) The Court of Appeal found that this limitation of the client`s power to resolve the complaint was valid and enforceable, as it favoured a comparison for a reasonable estimate of the value of the employee`s rights, while counsel`s right to compensation is respected, and counsel did not have an unfair advantage in negotiating the restriction. (Id. on 917-918.) Without analysing rule 3-300 factors that go beyond fairness to the client, the court stated: «We cannot fault a lawyer who has passed or expects to pursue a case as part of a contingency fee agreement, because he fears that the client will refuse an appropriate transaction offer. Such a challenge may not be recovered by the client, and therefore by counsel, to prove the costs of the trial. (Id.