RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘California’

California Lawyers Who Ignore Lienholders Do So At Their (Disciplinary) Peril

Posted on: October 20th, 2020

By: Greg Fayard

In personal injury law, California lawyers regularly must deal with medical liens. For example, lienholders have certain rights to proceeds from a settled case and expect to be paid. In the past, if a California lawyer ignored or mishandled a medical lien on personal injury proceeds, the lienholder could pursue the attorney for the amount owed.

But now, under Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, California lawyers can now be disciplined for ignoring or mishandling lienholder rights. That is, money from a California lawyer’s client trust account can only be released to the client or a lienholder if there is NO dispute as to who gets what.

Until the dispute over the personal injury funds is resolved, California lawyers have to keep the money in their client trust account. If a lawyer does not do this, and disburses funds that were supposed to go to a lienholder, the lawyer can now be disciplined by the State Bar. This means a California lawyer who is not careful with handling medical liens now is subject to both civil and disciplinary exposure.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Greg Fayard at [email protected], or any other member of our Lawyers Professional Liability Practice Group, a list of which can be found at

California’s New Normal: Electronic Service and Remote Depositions

Posted on: September 25th, 2020

By: Marshall Coyle

Prior to California Governor Gavin Newsom approving Senate Bill 1146 on September 18, 2020, California law provided that, for cases filed on or after January 1, 2019, if a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission, electronic service of the document was permitted if a party or other person has expressly consented to receive electronic service in that specific action, or if the court had ordered electronic service on a represented party or other represented person.

Senate Bill 1146 requires a party represented by counsel, who has appeared in an action or proceeding, to accept electronic service of a notice or document that may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission. The bill requires a party represented by counsel, upon the request of any party who has appeared in an action or proceeding and who provides an electronic service address, to electronically serve the requesting party with any notice or document that may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission.

Prior California law required a party deponent to appear at a properly noticed deposition and be in the presence of the deposition officer. It authorized a court to expressly provide that a nonparty deponent may appear at a deposition by telephone if the court found there was good cause and no prejudice to any party. It authorized a court to issue a protective order with respect to the conduct of a deposition in order to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense.

Senate Bill 1146 deletes the provision authorizing a court to provide that a nonparty deponent may appear by telephone. It instead authorizes the deponent or the deposing party to elect to have the deposition officer attend the deposition by telephone or other remote electronic means. It specifically provides that a deponent is not required to be physically present with the deposition officer when being sworn in at the time of the deposition, and that any party or attorney of record may, but is not required to, be physically present at the deposition at the location of the deponent, subject to any protective order issued by the court.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Marshall Coyle at [email protected].

Avoiding Implied Attorney-Client Relationships with Individual Members of Small Companies

Posted on: September 15th, 2020

By: Jennifer Weatherup

Where an attorney represents a partnership or entity, there is the potential for him or her to create an implied attorney-client relationship with its individual members, imposing a duty of care that the attorney may not be prepared to satisfy. This risk is particularly strong with small entities and partnerships, and attorneys who act on behalf of these entities must avoid inadvertently creating an implied relationship with any individual officers or members.

In California, the factors for determining the existence of an implied attorney-client relationship were set forth in Responsible Citizens v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1717. The Court in Responsible Citizens noted that, as a general rule, the attorney for a corporation represents the corporate entity, and represents its stockholders and its officers exclusively in their capacity as corporate representatives. However, it held that an attorney for a partnership could, through his or her conduct, enter into an “implied” attorney-client relationship to represent the interests of individual partners. Various factors could indicate that an implied relationship existed, including the type and size of the partnership, the nature and scope of the attorney’s engagement, the parties’ conduct, the existence of agreements between the attorney and the individual partner, and the attorney’s access to information regarding the individual partner’s interests. These factors must be considered within the totality of the circumstances.

Responsible Citizens was most recently revisited in September 2019, in the matter of Sprengel v. Zbylut (2019) 40 Cal. App. 5th 1028. The court in Sprengel concluded that, although it was relevant that the attorney represented a limited liability company with two 50 percent shareholders, this arrangement did not, in itself, create implied attorney-client relationships between the attorney and the shareholders. Because there was no evidence to demonstrate that “the parties conducted themselves in a way that would reasonably cause a shareholder to believe the attorney would protect the shareholder’s individual interests,” the plaintiff in Sprengel was unable to establish an attorney-client relationship with the defendant attorney.

To avoid owing a duty to their corporate client’s officers or shareholders, attorneys who represent partnerships and closely-held corporations should set reasonable boundaries between their representation and individual shareholders or members to avoid creating any impression that the attorney would protect their individual interests.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Jennifer Weatherup at [email protected]

California Expands Attorney Cooperation Requirement

Posted on: September 1st, 2020

By: Chuck Horn

In California, for more than ten years, upon request of another party, a party has been required to provide an electronic version of its separate statement in connection with a motion for summary judgment.  Since the separate statement would usually grow to three columns, covering many pages, with separate rows for citations to supporting evidence, this can be a cumbersome document. CRC 3.1350(i) made the practice of law more efficient by requiring this cooperation among counsel. 

Similar cooperation has now been mandated in California in the discovery context by CCP §2030.210(d) and CCP §2033.210(e). Last year California enacted AB 1349 in order to encourage a more efficient means of discovery. AB 1349 revises CCP §2030.210 and CCP §2033.210 by adding subdivisions (d) and (e) respectively, which require that upon request by the responding party, a party who has propounded interrogatories and/or requests for admission must provide them in electronic format within three court days of the request by the responding party, if the discovery requests were created in electronic format.

CCP §2030.210(d)(2) and CCP §2033.210(e)(2) further require that upon request by the propounding party after having received responses to the interrogatories or requests for admissions, the responding party shall provide the responses in an electronic format to the propounding party within three court days. Again, this eliminates unnecessary re-typing of documents, reduces the administrative burden of practicing law, and promotes cooperation and efficiency, all to better serve our clients.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Chuck Horn at [email protected].

Statute of Limitations Tolled in California Amid Pandemic

Posted on: August 3rd, 2020

By: Matthew Jones

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom issued a “state of emergency” for the entire State. In response, the California Judicial Council adopted several Emergency Rules to implement during the pandemic. In particular, Rule 9 states that all statute of limitations for civil causes of action are tolled from April 6, 2020 until 90 days after the state of emergency related to COVID-19 is lifted by the Governor. Therefore, if a party’s claim would have expired pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations during this timeframe, such claims are still very much alive. In regard to those claims, there is currently no deadline to file them since the “state of emergency” has yet to be lifted by the Governor. Once lifted, claimants will have six months to file their respective claims.

Additional Information:

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.**