What are the rules for seeking advice about current clients?

Useful Rulings on Seeking Advice About Current Clients

Recent Rulings on Seeking Advice About Current Clients

BROOKE KNAPP VS LAWRENCE A. GINSBERG, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1528.) Here, the four-year statute of limitations would be tolled until Plaintiff suffered actual injury as a result of the alleged professional negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JOHN MILLER, ET AL. VS MARTIN D. GROSS, ET AL.

Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534. As discussed above, there are sufficient allegations that an attorney-client relationship existed between Defendant Gross and Plaintiff Miller regarding the assignment of real property. Here, Defendant allegedly represented both sides in an Assignment, used the Assignment to bid on real property without telling Miller, recovered a deed for real property and then recovered cash and failed to inform Miller of that recovery. 1AC, ¶ 5.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

JORDAN GROSSMAN VS JESSICA HERWILL ET AL

The more relevant case to the disgorgement issue here is Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 1518. In Slovensky, a toxic tort case, the defendant lied to plaintiff when plaintiff retained him by telling plaintiff that the lawyer would not take any more toxic tort clients at the apartment complex where plaintiff’s injury occurred. He then signed up 20 more clients.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

IRVINE BAPTIST CHURCH V. KWON

First Cause of Action—Breach of Fiduciary Duty against David Kwon and Dong Il Shin: Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534, states, “ ‘. . . The elements of a cause of action for a breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” The First Amended Complaint (FAC) does not adequately allege that Plaintiff was damaged as a result of the alleged breach.

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

MONICA LEON VS MS DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY, LLC

Counsel contends that his firm’s continued representation will violate Rules of Professional Code Rule 1.4(a)(2) and 1.1(a). Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.) The Court notes that trial is scheduled for April 27, 2020 and no other motions are currently on calendar. Accordingly, no prejudice will result in granting this motion.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PLANNET CONSULTING VS. HOWARD

Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 1518, 1534; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1101–02. A fiduciary relationship is a relationship existing between parties to a transaction wherein one party is duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

HOSSEIN FATEHMANESH VS DAVID LALLY

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534 (quoting Beery v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 802, 813.) “‘The scope of an attorney’s duty may be determined as a matter of law based on the Rules of Professional Conduct which, ‘together with statutes and general principles relating to other fiduciary relationships, all help define the duty component of the fiduciary duty which an attorney owes to his [or her] client.’’” (Id. at 1534-35 (quoting Stanley v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TONY ATALLAH ET AL VS BURLISON LAW GROUP ET AL

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1528, as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 12, 2006).) Breach of Fiduciary Duty “The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach.” (Gutierrez v. Girardi (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 925, 932.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

CHATEAU LAKESIDE PARTNERS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION VS FREDERICK L. SPINRAD, ESQ., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1535.) “Disgorgement of fees may be an appropriate remedy for an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty.” (Id.) “The measure of damages in a legal malpractice action involving an attorney’s failure to bring a claim is the value of the claim lost.” (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 979.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

CHATEAU LAKESIDE PARTNERS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION VS FREDERICK L. SPINRAD, ESQ., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1535.) “Disgorgement of fees may be an appropriate remedy for an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty.” (Id.) “The measure of damages in a legal malpractice action involving an attorney’s failure to bring a claim is the value of the claim lost.” (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 979.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

ADRIAN ZAMBRANO VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1528.) Here, Plaintiff’s causes of action are based upon the loan modification offered to him, and the related representations made to him, in March of 2015. Plaintiff further alleges that his injuries were immediate in that the 2015 modification resulted in higher-than-expected monthly payments and an unchanged maturity date.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

CHRISTINA GARCIA VS JESSE E. FRENCH, ESQ.,, ET AL.

Furthermore, the only Rule of Professional Conduct cited by Garcia in her opposition is (Rule 1.4(a)(3) which requires attorneys to “keep the client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the representation.” (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.4(a)(3).) There are no facts alleged in the FAC that Dan failed to keep Garcia reasonably informed about developments in her personal injury case. Therefore, Dan’s demurrer is sustained.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

MITCHELL MIDDLETON VS MICHAEL D WAKS ET AL

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534, as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 12, 2006) citing Beery v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 802, 813.) Further, with respect to Plaintiffs lack of payment despite Bish’s knowledge of such, and in light of the fact that she, herself had already been paid, Plaintiff has provided sufficient documentation of a triable issue of fact.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

GLOBAL STUDENT HOUSING LLC VS TURCO

Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101–1102. A fiduciary relationship is a relationship existing between parties to a transaction wherein one party is duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

CHIANG THAO VS. MAY LEE

Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101–1102. “Before a person can be charged with a fiduciary obligation, he must either knowingly undertake to act on behalf and for the benefit of another, or must enter into a relationship which imposes that undertaking as a matter of law.” City of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 375, 386.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2019

  • County

    Merced County, CA

FIELD TIME TARGET & TRAINING V. CARINGELLA, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101–1102.) A fiduciary relationship is a relationship existing between parties to a transaction wherein one party is duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

RONALD K. GREEN VS STEVEN MICHAEL LASKY, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534.) Facts giving rise to a confidential, fiduciary or trustee relationship must be pled, and a “bare allegation that defendants assumed a fiduciary relationship” is a conclusion. (Zumbrun v. Univ. of So. Cal. (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1, 13.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SHAKINA D ORTEGA VS. HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1533-1534.) Here, the claim for legal malpractice fails based on the declaration from the Defendants meeting a fiduciary duty fails as well. For these reasons, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is supported by evidence sufficient to sustain the motion. II. The party opposing the motion has not met their burden to show triable issues of fact exist.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALONA SUDORZHENKO VS YOUSEF MONADJEMI

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1528 ; Campbell v. Magana (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 751, 758 [“(T)he mere probability that a certain event would have happened, upon which a claim for damages is predicated, will not support the claim or furnish the foundation of an action for such damages”].) Plaintiff’s complaint seeks $250,000 in damages for lost rental income.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

CHATEAU LAKESIDE PARTNERS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION VS FREDERICK L. SPINRAD, ESQ., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534.) Where an intentional breach of a fiduciary duty is alleged in connection with legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish that the actions of defendants were a substantial factor in the result. (Knutson v. Foster (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1075, 1094.) Specifically, a plaintiff must allege “it was more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant[s] [were] a substantial factor in the [negative] result.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2019

ADRIAN ZAMBRANO VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1528.) Here, Plaintiff’s causes of action are based upon the loan modification offered to him, and the related representations made to him, in March of 2015. Plaintiff further alleges that his injuries were immediate in that the 2015 modification resulted in higher-than-expected monthly payments and an unchanged maturity date.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

CADRIN E GILL ET AL VS LAW OFFICES OF SPOTORA & ASSOCIATES

As noted by the court in Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534-1535, a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence. Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts that would support a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2019

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMANDA CAST VS NATE KELLY

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1528.) “[The] mere probability that a certain event would have happened, upon which a claim for damages is predicated, will not support the claim or furnish the foundation of an action for such damages.” (Sukoff v. Lemkin (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 740, 747.) Attorneys cannot be held liable for conduct that occurs after they cease to represent the client and are succeeded by another attorney who could act to protect the client's rights. (Steketee v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2019

ANDREA GALANTE VS JOSHUA M FINE ET AL

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534.) Thus, Galante has established the existence of a fiduciary a fiduciary duty to Galante.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2019

SOOFI VS CONTRERAS

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534-1535 [Citation and quotation omitted].) It is the general duty of an attorney to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of clients and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in matters for which the attorney has agreed to provide legal services. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068(m); Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.4.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.