Modica

In this action for damages allegedly caused by the negligence of an attorney in the giving of professional advice, general and special demurrers to the fourth amended complaint were sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff chose not to amend. Judgment of dismissal was entered and plaintiff has appealed.

Inasmuch as the order sustained “the demurrer" without specifying the grounds, general or special, but with leave to amend, the judgment must be affirmed if the order is sustainable upon any of the grounds presented by the demurrer. (Haddad v. McDowell, 213 Cal. 690, 691 [ 3 P.2d 550 ]; Feldesman v. McGovern, 44 Cal.App.2d 566, 568 [ 112 P.2d 645 ].)

The complaint is not vulnerable to a general demurrer. It pleads adequately all of the essential facts that constitute a cause of action for negligence in this type of case, notably: “First, that there existed the relationship of attorney and client; second, that in connection with such relationship advice was given; third, that he relied upon such advice and as a result thereof did things that he would not otherwise have done; fourth, that as a direct and proximate result of such advice and the doing of such acts, he suffered loss…