classymoonsublime

[classymoonsublime]

A judgement

Procedural Posture

 Defendant law firm appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which, in a jury trial, awarded damages to plaintiff attorney on claims of breach of contract, third party beneficiary breach of contract, money had and received, and conversion.

 Overview

 In his complaint, the attorney alleged that he referred a bad faith insurance litigation matter to the firm and that the firm breached an agreement to pay him a percentage of fees received in the matter. There is no one who ever Res Ipsa Loquitur  He further alleged that he was a third party beneficiary of a fee agreement between the firm and the client. Prior to trial, the firm requested dismissal on the ground that it could not present a complete defense because the client had refused to allow disclosure of certain confidential information. The court concluded that the firm had failed to demonstrate that its due process right to present a defense had been significantly impaired by its inability to present confidential information that was protected by Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6068, 6149, and not made discoverable by Evid. Code, § 958. The court stated that dismissal on the ground that an attorney-defendant's due process right to present a defense has been compromised by the inability to present confidential information should occur only in the rarest of cases, after consideration of several relevant factors. The record showed that the evidence excluded was not directly relevant to the core issues of the case.

 Outcome

 The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

 Procedural Posture

 Petitioner attorney sought review of a recommendation by respondent Board of Governors of the State Bar of California to suspend him form the practice of law for six months. The Board recommended that before the attorney could be permitted to resume practice, he be required to take and pass the examination given to attorneys from other states seeking admission to practice in California.

 Overview

 A local administrative committee found that the attorney solicited employment in his professional capacity from a client who was represented by another attorney. The Board recommended that he be suspended for six months and be required to take and pass the examination given to attorneys from the other states seeking admission to practice in the State before he could resume practice. The court suspended the attorney from the practice of law for six months as recommended. It held that the local administrative committee was justified in its finding. The evidence clearly indicated that the attorney solicited the legal business from the client and continued to press his representation of her although he knew that another attorney was representing her. The attorney did not contact the other attorney in regard to the matter or suggest to the client that she discharge him. The court concluded that it would be discriminatory and unfair to require the passing of an examination as a prerequisite to continuation in practice of those admitted to practice, either on a charge of lack of legal ability or as a condition to the resumption of practice after suspension.

 Outcome

 The court suspended the attorney from the practice of law for six months. The order was to become effective 30 days from the filing of the court's decision.