Lewis

Lewis v. Purvin

Good Law
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 231·208 Cal. App. 3d 1208·256 Cal. Rptr. 827
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 22, 1989D008323California3,391 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

Alleging a variety of theories, Don R. Lewis and Elinor J. Lewis sued Robert L. Purvin, Jr., for legal malpractice. Purvin in turn cross-complained against the Lewises’ attorney of record, Richard W. Davis, seeking indemnification and declaratory relief arising out of the same transactions on which the Lewises based their complaint. After the trial court sustained without leave to amend Davis’s demurrer to the cross-complaint, Purvin timely appealed.

Since the weight of authority precludes cross-complaints for indemnity by an attorney against successor counsel and malpractice actions by an attorney against opposing counsel, Purvin attempts to bring his pleading within a narrow exception to these rules. He alleges opposing counsel, Davis, represented the Lewises before, during, and after Purvin’s alleged malpractice toward the Lewises. He further contends that due to his claim for implied indemnity, Davis has a duty to defend him upon demand under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.6, and he is therefore entitled to seek attorney fees by way of cross-complaint.

We hold that this cross-complaint, which would require the attorney for plaintiff in the main action to…

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.