Attorney Duties

Useful Rulings on Attorney Duties

Recent Rulings on Attorney Duties

CHRISTOPHER BONHAGE ET AL V. HIRAL HANSAPRIYA RAWSON

Hamm, (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 583, 589 (Lucus), where an attorney engaged to prepare a will was sued by a beneficiary. Plaintiffs cite Lucus for the point “the lack of privity between plaintiffs and defendant does not preclude plaintiffs from maintaining an action in tort against defendant.” Here, Plaintiffs were not the intended beneficiary of a document or agreement between Rawson and the realtors, and thus are not similar to the plaintiffs in Lucus.

  • Hearing

CONSUMER OPINION VS. ZCS

Code §6128(a), which makes it illegal for an attorney to engage in “deceit or collusion” with the “with intent to deceive the court or any party”. But, defendants do not concede that their conduct was illegal. Nor do defendants admit to plaintiff’s characterization of the facts. Thus, although plaintiff’s evidence is suggestive of illegal activity, it does not show that the defendants’ conduct was illegal as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

KRISTINA KARKANEN VS. ELIZABETH BRAUNSTEIN

The Court did note that father had alleged that the custody evaluator violated Rule 5.220 (id. at pp. 1125, 1131), said that the trial court failed to define the scope of the custody evaluation as required by Evidence Code section 730 (id. at p. 1132), and suggested that the custody evaluator failed to provide a written protocol defining the contours of the evaluation, as required by Rule 5.220. (Id. at p. 1133.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 589 and Virtanen v. O'Connell (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 688 Plaintiff has pled claims for Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. In Lucas the court permitted a claim of legal malpractice against an attorney who negligently drafted a will to cause the intended beneficiaries to lose $75,000.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 589 and Virtanen v. O'Connell (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 688 Plaintiff has pled claims for Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. In Lucas the court permitted a claim of legal malpractice against an attorney who negligently drafted a will to cause the intended beneficiaries to lose $75,000.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 589 and Virtanen v. O'Connell (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 688 Plaintiff has pled claims for Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. In Lucas the court permitted a claim of legal malpractice against an attorney who negligently drafted a will to cause the intended beneficiaries to lose $75,000.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 589 and Virtanen v. O'Connell (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 688 Plaintiff has pled claims for Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. In Lucas the court permitted a claim of legal malpractice against an attorney who negligently drafted a will to cause the intended beneficiaries to lose $75,000.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 589 and Virtanen v. O'Connell (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 688 Plaintiff has pled claims for Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. In Lucas the court permitted a claim of legal malpractice against an attorney who negligently drafted a will to cause the intended beneficiaries to lose $75,000.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 589 and Virtanen v. O'Connell (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 688 Plaintiff has pled claims for Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. In Lucas the court permitted a claim of legal malpractice against an attorney who negligently drafted a will to cause the intended beneficiaries to lose $75,000.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MICHAEL S. LITTLE V. EDWARD G. MANNION, ET AL.

Code §§ 6068, 6106 and 6128(a), a crime; and insurer of Ins. Code § 790.03(h)(l), e.g., fraud as to ‘proof of claim.’ “4) Defendant failed to: i) sue insurer for blockbuster punitive damages ….; ii) claim corporate indemnity from plaintiff/parent company for $336,500 damages and iii) advise of defense attorney malpractice by not claiming indemnity and notifying D&O insurer immediately.

  • Hearing

NEWPORT JEWISH CENTER VS. O’HARA & GRECO

Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 589-591.

  • Hearing

Newport Jewish Center vs. O’Hara & Greco 15-816962

Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 589-591.

  • Hearing

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.