CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Archive for the ‘California LPL’ Category

Watch for the Sucker Punch… Joint and Several Liability for Professional Negligence?

Posted on: March 20th, 2019

By: Jon Tisdale

Litigants are forever looking for new ways to blame their lawyers when their mediocre case goes south. (As an aside, pay close attention to your intake protocol and “just say no” to those mediocre cases, because when they go bad, so will your relationship with your former client.) So, why is this a special problem for lawyers?

Like most states, California draws a bright line between economic and non-economic damages. In an effort to keep underinsured deadbeats from stiffing tort victims, California has enacted a statute with the stated economic impact being to hold “deep pocket” defendants (yes, the statute actually employs that disgraceful terminology) responsible jointly and severally for economic damages so as to not deprive an innocent victim of recovery of their medical bills, without regard to apportionment of fault. Non-economic damages (for “pain and suffering,” the so-called pot o’ gold at the end of the rainbow) remain collectible only to the extent of an actual apportionment of negligence by the trier of fact. This legislative enactment was, at least in California, aimed at the damages recoverable as a result of countless personal injury actions arising from car accidents. But wait… the statute applies to TORT actions… which means that it also applies, apparently unwittingly, to Professional Negligence actions.

California Jury Instructions (CACI) attempt to clearly define economic versus non-economic damages. Economic damages are verifiable, out-of-pocket monetary losses. Non-economic damages are the pie-in-the-sky general damages for physical pain, mental suffering and emotional distress that lead to the “Stella Award” type of verdicts. But that’s typically not the danger of professional negligence actions. CACI clearly instructs jurors that: “you will be asked on the Verdict Form to state the two categories of damages separately” (which is a legislative proclamation that if a trial judge permits a verdict form that does not require segregation of economic and non-economic damages, it will in fact be reversible error).

Why is this dangerous in professional negligence cases? Because, generally speaking, in cases involving the tort of professional negligence virtually all of the damages are economic! Professional negligence cases have a nominal “emotional distress” element to them, but the meat and potatoes of the tort is WHAT DID YOUR NEGLIGENCE COST ME OUT OF POCKET? It is not so much about how did it make the litigant feel, but how much did it cost them.

Increasingly we see cases in which litigants with less than clearly meritorious cases change lawyers mid-case, sometimes more than once. If it goes south, they are going to sue everyone. This is the danger that you need to be alerted to and cognizant of. You could be defending a lawyer who was just one of several lawyers in the chain of representation and who did seemingly nothing wrong.  But if the economic damages are millions of dollars and your client is found 1% at fault… he/she has joint and several liability for the full amount of the economic damages! More than a little scary…

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Jon Tisdale at [email protected].

Trends in Real Estate Claims

Posted on: March 5th, 2019

By: Peter Catalanotti

In representing real estate brokers through their Errors & Omissions insurance for over a decade, I often get asked what types of claims are trending. What follows is my experience regarding real estate broker claim trends.

Real estate broker claims tend to track the economy.

In increasing and level markets, the claims against real estate brokers often include equitable relief such as specific performance. Often times the plaintiff/buyer will be a plaintiff/attempted buyer. With increasing or level markets, sellers may receive multiple offers. The decision of which offer a seller should take is sometimes a close call. When something goes wrong during the transaction or delays the close of escrow, the seller often prefers to get out of the purchase contract and sell to a backup buyer. Sellers may think that the backup buyer will be less trouble. Occasionally, the seller will offer to repurchase the property.

In decreasing markets and recessions, we see more claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and fraud cases. Sometimes, these cases often involve buyer’s remorse. Plaintiff/buyer then sues for damages. The property they purchased is worth less than they paid for it, so the buyer has an interest in recouping this loss. At least in California, there is almost always a defect in a transaction that an expert can exploit. A buyer who was marginally able to afford a property may be looking for a way out. Buyers behind on mortgage payments may sue the lender, mortgage broker, and real estate broker in an attempt to renegotiate the terms of their mortgage.

One of the reasons that real estate broker claims are hard to track is that the cases that make it to an appellate court or state supreme court were most likely filed years earlier. Therefore, when analyzing a real estate broker claim, it is important to take note of the economy at the time of purchase and the motivations of the plaintiff. Understanding the plaintiff’s motivation can at times help bring the case close to an early resolution.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Peter Catalanotti at [email protected].

Can California Associate Attorneys Be Disciplined For Their Boss’s Misconduct?

Posted on: February 27th, 2019

By: Gregory Fayard

The answer to this question is yes, in certain circumstances. In November 2018, after 29 years, California enacted new rules of professional conduct for lawyers. The new rules have some major changes from the old rules. One of the biggest changes applies to associate attorneys who are just doing what their boss-lawyer tells them. But what if the associate’s boss is instructing the associate to do something obviously unethical? In that case, the associate can be disciplined by the State Bar. The new rule on this point is 5.2. For example, if the associate’s boss advises the associate to lie to a client, or forge a signature, or divulge client secrets, then those breaches are so obvious the associate could be disciplined. All California lawyers must comply with ethics rules, even if acting at the direction of another. The Nuremberg defense does not fly.

What about a close call? What if the associate’s boss tells the associate to do the bare minimum on a case? That order arguably violates a lawyer’s duty of diligence (Rule 1.3). Or, what if the associate’s boss orders an associate to do everything and anything on a file? That order might violate Rule 3.2 which says lawyers shall not do tasks whose substantial purpose is to prolong or cause needless expense. In these two situations, the ethical breach is an arguable question—a “close call” if you will. In these situations the California associate would have a good argument for not being disciplined.

The new California rules of professional conduct, however, have created a potentially awkward employment situation for associates: if the subordinate lawyer believes his or her supervisor’s solution to an ethics issue would violate an ethical rule, “the subordinate is obligated to communicate his or her professional judgment regarding the matter to the supervisory lawyer.”  (See Comment to Rule 5.2.)

What should California lawyers keep in mind, then?

  1. Don’t blindly follow directions from your supervisor without thinking of the ethical implications;
  2. Doing something obviously unethical can get you in trouble with the State Bar even if the direction came from your boss;
  3. You probably will not be disciplined if an ethical question can be answered more than one way;
  4. You may have to have a talk with your boss if he or she is doing something obviously unethical.

My next blog will discuss whether a supervising lawyer in California can be disciplined for an associate’s unethical lapse.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Greg Fayard at [email protected].

What Are The Ethical Rules For Legal Blogs In California?

Posted on: February 1st, 2019

By: Greg Fayard

If you are a California lawyer and are thinking about starting a blog, keep these points in mind:

  1. Blogging by an attorney may be a communication subject to the requirements and restrictions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act relating to lawyer advertising if the blog expresses the attorney’s availability for professional employment directly through words of invitation or offer to provide legal services, or implicitly through its description of the type and character of legal services offered by the attorney, detailed descriptions of case results, or both.
  2. A blog that is an integrated part of an attorney’s or law firm’s website will be a communication subject to the rules and statutes regulating attorney advertising to the same extent as the website of which it is a part.
  3. A stand-alone blog by an attorney, even if discussing legal topics within or outside the authoring attorney’s area of practice, is not a communication subject to the requirements and restrictions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act relating to lawyer advertising unless the blog directly or implicitly expresses the attorney’s availability for professional employment.
  4. A stand-alone blog by an attorney on a non-legal topic is not a communication subject to the rules and statutes regulating attorney advertising and is not subject thereto simply because the blog contains a link to the attorney or law firm’s professional website. However, extensive and/or detailed professional identification information announcing the attorney’s availability for professional employment will itself be a communication subject to the ethical rules and statutes.

See California Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 and 7.2 and Business and Professions Code sections 6157-6159.2; State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, Formal Opinion Interim No. 12-0006.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Greg Fayard at [email protected].

California Court Clarifies Grounds for Law Firm Disqualification

Posted on: January 30th, 2019

By: Brett Safford

In O’Gara Coach Company, LLC v. Joseph Ra, 2019 Cal.App. Lexis 12, the California Court of Appeal clarified the grounds on which a law firm can be disqualified. The Court reversed the decision of the trial court and disqualified Richie Litigation PC from representing Joseph Ra, a former executive of O’Gara Coach Company, LLC, in litigation involving Ra and O’Gara Coach. The Court held that disqualification is warranted because Darren Richie, the founder of Richie Litigation, formerly served as O’Gara Coach’s president and chief operating officer, and in those roles, he served a primary point of contact for the company’s outside counsel and possessed “confidential information, protected by O’Gara Coach’s attorney-client privilege, concerning Ra’s allegedly fraudulent activities at issue in this litigation.” The Court disqualified Richie Litigation even though Richie was not a licensed attorney when serving as O’Gara Coach’s president and chief operating officer and never had an attorney-client relationship with the company. The Court further held that vicarious disqualification of the entire firm, not only Richie, is warranted under the doctrine of imputed knowledge.

The litigation between O’Gara Coach and Ra arose from a lawsuit filed by Marcelo Caraveo, a former customer of O’Gara Coach, alleging wrongful conduct by O’Gara Coach, Ra, and others relating to Caraveo’s acquisition of luxury vehicles from O’Gara Coach. Ra filed a cross-complaint against O’Gara Coach for indemnity, and O’Gara Coach filed a cross-complaint against Ra, Caraveo, and others alleging that Ra and Caraveo “were the primary architects” of a fraudulent scheme involving the sale, leasing, and financing of vehicles.

Richie’s employment with O’Gara Coach terminated in 2016. In May 2017, Richie filed articles of incorporation for Richie Litigation which named Robert Lu as the sole officer and director.  In June 2017, Lu substituted as counsel of record for Ra. In August 2017, Richie was admitted to the California State Bar.

In October 2017, O’Gara Coach moved to disqualify Richie Litigation based on two reasons. First, O’Gara Coach argued that although Richie was not a licensed attorney when employed by the company, “the court should apply the rule requiring disqualification of attorneys representing adverse parties in successive representations when, as here, the matters are substantially related, as well as the rule that, when a former client’s confidential information is known to any attorney at a law firm, the entire firm must be disqualified.” Second, O’Gara Coach argued disqualification of Richie Litigation is warranted because Richie was privy to O’Gara Coach’s privileged information, and “Richie Litigation is not entitled to exploit that information in litigation adverse to the company.” The Court of Appeal rejected the first argument, but agreed with the second, holding that the trial court “erred in failing to consider O’Gara Coach’s alternate argument that disqualification of Richie and his law firm was required as a prophylactic measure because the firm was in possession of confidential information, protected by O’Gara Coach’s attorney-client privilege, concerning Ra’s allegedly fraudulent activities at issue in this litigation.”

The Court of Appeal explained that O’Gara Coach presented undisputed evidence that Richie participated in meetings and communications with outside counsel who were investigating Ra’s activities and “developing theories material to O’Gara Coach’s defense and forming the basis for its cross-claims in this litigation and that are protected by lawyer-client privilege.”  As the privilege belongs to O’Gara Coach, Richie cannot disclose privileged information without O’Gara Coach’s consent.  The Court further concluded, “[N]ow that Richie is a member of the California State Bar, O’Gara Coach is entitled to insist that he honor his ethical duty to maintain the integrity of the judicial process by refraining from representing former O’Gara Coach employees in this litigation against O’Gara Coach that involve matters as to which he possesses confidential information.”

The Court of Appeal further held that Richie Litigation is variously disqualified because “once a showing has been made that someone at the adverse party’s law firm possesses confidential attorney-client information materially related to the proceedings before the court, a rebuttable presumption arises that the information has been used or disclosed in the current employment,” and Ra did not present evidence that Richie had been screened from Lu or other lawyers at the firm working on the pending litigation. As such, the Court held that “the doctrine of imputed knowledge requires the vicarious disqualification of the entire Richie Litigation firm.”

O’Gara Coach emphasizes the paramount importance of protecting client confidences and the attorney-client privilege to ensure the “integrity of the judicial process.” An attorney must not only be mindful of his or her own prior relationships with an opposing party, but also of the prior relationships between other attorneys in his or her firm and an opposing party. Without thorough conflict checks, firms may subject themselves to disqualification and other costly repercussions from their clients.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Brett Safford at [email protected].