In the case of Fred A. Whitaker v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (Merrill Reese, Inc., Real Party in Interest), 1994, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to review a decision made by the lower court regarding an attorney's fees dispute between Mr. Whitaker and his former client Merrill Reese Inc. The main issue revolved around whether or not attorneys could be held liable for excessive billing practices under California law if they did not provide their clients with detailed invoices explaining how their time was spent on each task performed during representation. The Supreme Court ruled that while it is important for lawyers to maintain transparency about their billing practices with clients, there are no specific statutory requirements mandating them to provide itemized bills unless explicitly agreed upon in the retainer agreement signed at commencement of legal services.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fred A. Whitaker v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (Merrill Reese, Inc., Real Party in Interest), 1994 argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Whitaker was incorrect because it failed to adequately consider his right to due process under the law. The dissenters believed that by allowing Merrill Reese, Inc.'s lawsuit against Whitaker for alleged breach of contract and fraud to proceed without sufficient evidence or clear legal justification violated his constitutional rights. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant state laws and precedents related to contractual obligations and business transactions, arguing instead for a more stringent standard that would better protect individuals like Whitaker from potentially frivolous or unjust lawsuits. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications this ruling could have on future cases involving similar issues.