Case Summaries
Legal Malpractice
[05/05]
In Re: Teligent, Incorporated
In a dispute arising from an action for legal malpractice, judgment of the district court denying motion to lift bankruptcy protective orders and cross-motion for injunctive relief barring defendant from attacking the validity of a settlement agreement on the grounds of waiver is affirmed where: 1) defendant-law firm failed to make the requisite showing to lift orders; and 2) it was not a party in interest with standing such that its failure to contest the validity of settlement agreement constituted waiver.
[04/19]
Callahan v. Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
In a dispute alleging professional malpractice arising from the drafting of a deficient partnership agreement by the defendant, summary judgment on the ground that action was time-barred is reversed because placement of actual injury upon the execution of the defective agreement was erroneous where CCP section 340.6 (a)(1), tolled the limitations period until plaintiff could establish a cause of action for legal malpractice.
[04/13]
Knopick v. Connelly
In a dispute arising from a legal malpractice claim and the timeliness of underlying tort action, summary judgment in favor of defendant on the ground that action was time-barred is reversed where district court failed to apply the discovery rule to underlying claim, and there was a genuine issue of fact prohibiting summary dismissal.
[03/04]
Augusta v. Keehn and Associates
In a civil action alleging legal malpractice, order denying petition by plaintiff to compel arbitration of action is affirmed, as it is supported by substantial evidence.
[01/13]
Cassel v. Superior Court
In plaintiff's malpractice action against his attorneys, claiming that by bad advice, deception, and coercion, the attorneys, who has a conflict of interest, induced him to settle for a lower amount than he had told them he would accept in the underlying action, the court of appeals' judgment vacating the trial court's grant of defendant attorneys motion to exclude all evidence of private attorney-client discussions immediately preceding, and during, the mediation concerning mediation settlement strategies and defendants' efforts to persuade plaintiff to reach a settlement in the mediation, is reversed where: 1) the result reached by the court of appeals contravenes the Legislature's explicit command that, unless the confidentiality of a particular communicative is expressly waived, under statutory procedures, by all mediation "participants," or at least by all those "participants" by or for whom it was prepared, things said or written for the purpose of and pursuant to a mediation shall be inadmissible in any civil action; 2) as the statutes make clear, confidentiality, unless waived, extends beyond utterances or writings in the course of a mediation, and thus is not confined to communications that occur between mediation disputants during the mediation proceeding itself, and by holding otherwise, and overturning the trial court's exclusionary order, the court of appeal erred.
[01/11]
Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C.
In a patent owner's malpractice action against a law firm, arising from an underlying patent infringement litigation involving patents directed to lacrosse sticks and heads, district court's dismissal of the suit for lack of jurisdiction is vacated and remanded as, because at least one of plaintiff's malpractice claims requires the court to resolve a substantive issue of patent law, 28 U.S.C. section 1338, which grants district courts exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising under a statute relating to patents, invests the district court with subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims in this case.
[12/08]
Hall v. Kalfayan
In plaintiff's suit for legal malpractice, claiming that the attorney's failure to timely perform his duties had deprived him of the majority of a testator's estate, trial court's grant of the attorney's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the attorney owed no duty to plaintiff, who was not his client and not the beneficiary of an executed estate plan, is affirmed as a prospective beneficiary of a will cannot maintain a cause of action for legal malpractice against the attorney who drafted the will but did not have it executed before the death of the testator.
[11/30]
Dang v. Smith
In plaintiff's legal malpractice action against her former attorneys and their firm, who had represented plaintiff in obtaining and attempting to collect a judgment against two men who purchased a bakery business from her and then defaulted, claiming that defendants failed to record a judgment lien against real property in which one of the judgment debtors held an interest as joint tenant, trial court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment is affirmed as plaintiff made no attempt to demonstrate, by proposed pleading, declarations, or otherwise, that she could truthfully plead, let alone prove, the elements of a cause of action on any of her new three theories. Further, because plaintiff at no time moved, or even asked the court, for leave to amend her complaint, plaintiff's argument that the trial court erred by failing to grant leave to amend is rejected not only because it is procedurally insupportable, but because none of the proposed new theories appears to be substantively viable.
[08/26]
Florida Bar v. Hall
In an attorney's disciplinary proceedings, arising from forgery and fraudulent recording of a lease agreement and agreement for sale between the attorney and property owners, a referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is approved in part and disapproved in part where: 1) referee's finding of fact, recommendations of guilt, and award of costs are affirmed; 2) referee's reliance on Standard 7.0 is disapproved and instead Standard 5.0 should be applied; and 3) referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is unsupported, as after considering the factual findings, the totality of misconduct, case law, and the Standards, disbarment is the appropriate sanction.
[05/27]
ABASSI v. WELKE
The trial court may sua sponte entertain a second summary judgment motion following its denial of a previous summary judgment motion notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.
[05/26]
ABASSI v. WELKE
The trial court may sua sponte entertain a second summary judgment motion following its denial of a previous summary judgment motion notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.
[05/21]
KAEMPE v. MYERS
Plaintiff's claim for conversion of patent rights was properly dismissed because no such conveyance occurred. As he neglected to provide expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care, his legal malpractice claim fails as well.
[04/23]
VINER v. SWEET
Damages award is vastly reduced in light of the California Supreme Court's holding that a plaintiff in a transactional malpractice action must show that but for the alleged malpractice, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result.
[04/22]
AGUILAR v. LERNER
Once a client files a malpractice lawsuit against his or her former attorney, the client waives any rights under the mandatory fee arbitration act. Accordingly, the arbitration provisions of the retainer agreement were properly deemed enforceable.
[04/19]
ZAMOS v. STROUD
An attorney may be held liable for malicious prosecution for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause.
[04/05]
HARRIGFELD v. HANCOCK
In light of the Idaho Supreme Court's response to a question of law, plaintiffs lack standing to bring this legal malpractice action; dismissal is affirmed.
[03/05]
MIHAILOVICH v. LAATSCH
District court erred in excluding evidence of substantially similar accidents that had occurred at the S-curve in the years immediately before and after plaintiff's accident; a new trial is warranted. On remand, the admissibility of plaintiff's expert testimony should be freshly addressed.
[02/03]
ADCO OIL CO. v. ROVELL
Because plaintiff assigned both its intellectual property and its interest in the underlying litigation to Hugoton Joint Venture 1986 (HJV), its only interest in any legal malpractice proceeding against HJV's lawyer is derivative. Only HJV could vindicate the interest of the partnership as a whole, and the time to do so expired years ago.
[01/20]
MUNGO v. TAYLOR
District court did not err in reversing the bankruptcy court decision deeming plaintiff to be a prevailing party on the legal malpractice claim brought against her former divorce attorney, while affirming the bankruptcy court's judgment on all other grounds.
[01/12]
GOLD v. WEISSMAN
Plaintiff's malpractice complaint against her former attorney is not time-barred. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, the one-year statute was tolled for as long as the attorney continued to represent his client in the same specific subject matter in which the negligence occurred.
[10/30]
REDANTE v. YOCKELSON
Summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where 1) as a criminal defendant, plaintiff had no constitutional right to counsel in habeas corpus proceedings, and consequently, no right to effective assistance of counsel, and 2) plaintiff did not establish his actual innocence in a postconviction proceeding.
