Maynard

John B. Gunn Law Corp. v. Maynard

Bad Law
189 Cal. App. 3d 1565·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1467·235 Cal. Rptr. 180
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 5, 1987H000244California2,767 words

Opinion

Opinion

Agliano, J.

I

An attorney’s complaint, seeking compensation for services rendered based on a written contingent fee contract, encountered the client’s cross-complaint alleging legal malpractice. After trial, the jury returned verdicts which awarded the attorney $208,000 in damages for the client’s breach of the fee contract and rejected the cross-complaint. The client appeals from the ensuing judgment, which we will affirm on the complaint and reverse on the cross-complaint because of instructional error on the issue of proximate cause.

II

Background Facts

Defendant and cross-complainant Smilja Maynard (Mrs. Maynard) met Merlin Maynard on June 7, 1975, when he employed her as a part-time live-in housekeeper. At the time he was 75 years old and affected by Parkinson’s disease. She was then 55. In August, she assumed the position full-time, and they married on September 12, 1975.

In April 1976, they contacted John Hopkins, an attorney, to prepare a will for Dr. Maynard. Mr. Hopkins learned that some of Dr. Maynard’s assets were in a living trust created when Dr. Maynard’s first wife was alive. In investigating the facts, Mr. Hopkins was incorrectly apprised the residence real…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.