Blog Home

Tag: Case-Within-a-Case

November 30, 2010

Dang v. Smith (2010)190 Cal.App.4th 646

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Dang v. Smith (2010)190 Cal.App.4th 646

Download Publication The Sixth District holds that summary judgment was warranted when the client’s liability theories were speculative and not supported by proof of damages.  Sherry Dang retained Alan Smith and his firm who obtained a judgment against Robert Probst.  A judgment lien was recorded against Probst’s joint tenancy property but was extinguished after Probst […]

Tags: , ,
Categories: Legal Updates

June 25, 2003

Barnard v. Langer (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1453

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Barnard v. Langer (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1453

Download Publication The Second Appellate District finds that an inadequate settlement claim is speculative without proof of the underlying adversary’s willingness to pay a higher settlement or proof of a better trial result.  In addition, the tension between attorney’s fees and the client’s interest is not a conflict of interest.  Finally, abusive client conduct concerning […]

Tags: , ,
Categories: Legal Updates

June 23, 2003

Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1232

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1232

Download Publication California Supreme Court holds that plaintiffs in transactional malpractice actions must prove that but for the malpractice, there would have been a more favorable result.  In a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court held today that when a client claims malpractice occurred in transactional work (advising or preparing documents for business transactions), the […]

Tags: , ,
Categories: Legal Updates

June 9, 2003

Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1037

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1037

Download Publication California Supreme Court holds that attorneys cannot be liable for “lost” punitive damages.  Resolving a split of authority at the appellate level, the California Supreme Court today adopted a broad, bright-line rule that precludes malpractice claims against attorneys for “lost” punitive damages.  The majority opinion by Justice Brown, joined by Chief Justice George […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

April 11, 2003

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe v. Superior Court (Malcolm) (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1052

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe v. Superior Court (Malcolm) (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1052

Download Publication To establish a claim of “negligent settlement”, plaintiff must prove his opponent in the underlying matter would have settled on more favorable terms or that there would have been a better result at trial. Michael A. Malcolm hired Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe to represent him in the dissolution of his marriage.  After Malcolm […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

October 31, 2000

California State Automobile Ass’n Inter-Insurance Bureau v. Parichan, Renberg, Crossman & Harvey (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 702

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on California State Automobile Ass’n Inter-Insurance Bureau v. Parichan, Renberg, Crossman & Harvey (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 702

Download Publication Proof of the case-within-the-case is not required in trying transactional legal malpractice actions.  The case-within-the-case requirement still applies to litigation legal malpractice claims. CSAA retained Parichan, Renberg, Crossman & Harvey to represent CSAA’s insured in a car accident.  The law firm did not provide a critical medical expert’s report to CSAA.  The report […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates