What is the effect of a misrepresentation in a client retainer under Rule 2-200 of the California Family Law Act?

attorney were confirmed by plaintiff and her mother. Yet more than 19 months passed before he attempted to correct the misrepresentation contained in the amended client retainer, i.e., that the calculation of attorney fees was based on a 40-40-20 split amongst himself, Gallagher, and referring attorneys. Under these circumstances we are not persuaded equitable relief would have been appropriate. (See Margolin v. Shemaria, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at pp. 901-903 [plaintiff/attorney is barred from recovering referral fees from defendant/attorney because the latter attorney did not obtain his client's written consent for fee sharing as required by rule 2-200].)⁸