Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Breach of Professional Duty Claims Survive
In Charnay v. Cobert '- Cal.Rptr.3d ”, 2006 WL 3410818 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 11/28/06) (Perluss, P.J.), the trial court erred by sustaining a demurrer to a former client's suit against the law firm that represented her as she adequately alleged, inter alia, legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.
A former client filed suit for professional negligence/legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and related causes of action against the attorney who represented her in her defense of a suit brought by a neighbor seeking contribution of $18,903 for im-provements to their subdivision. At her attorney's urging, plaintiff did not settle with the neighbors and brought several complaints of her own, resulting in an order that she pay the $18,903 originally sought from her, $25,800 in unpaid homeowner assessments and the aggregate sum of $580,000 for the opposing parties' attorney fees pursuant to a fee-shifting provision in the subdivision's conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC & R). Plaintiff's attorney also billed her $360,000. The trial court reasoned plaintiff failed to plead facts showing she would have agreed to a settlement with her neighbor and, absent such allegation, any suggestion that plaintiff would have received a more favorable outcome but for her attorney's malpractice was too speculative to state a claim. The trial court concluded all the other claims were also legally deficient. The former client appealed.
The appellate court found credible plaintiff's statement that she would have been able to settle for less than $25,000 adequate to state a claim. She need not allege that her neighbors would have accepted such a settlement because it could be implied that, having filed a lawsuit seeking less than $19,000, the neighbors would have been willing to settle at or near the $25,000 level. Additionally, plaintiff need not prove a $25,000 settlement would have been reached, only that, but for her attorney's malpractice, she would have obtained a 'more favorable result' than the $600,000-plus judgment ultimately rendered against her. Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1232.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.