Rice

Plaintiff Harvey Rice (Rice) appeals from a summary judgment granted against him and in favor of Robert Trammell Crow (Crow), Neal Pardee (Pardee), Robert Rickard (Rickard) and Ronald Cox (Cox) (collectively Defendants). Relying on the decision in Arciniega v. Bank of San Bernardino (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 213 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 495 ] (Arciniega), Defendants argued, and the trial court agreed, that Rice’s settlement and dismissal with prejudice of a legal malpractice action against his former attorneys arising from their representation of him earlier in these proceedings constituted a retraxit barring Rice’s suit against Defendants. We conclude that Arciniega is flawed in its reasoning and that the settlement and dismissal of the legal malpractice action does not bar Rice’s action against Defendants. We therefore reverse the judgment.

Factual and Procedural History

A. The Transaction Which Gave Rise to the Underlying Action

Rice, in his declaration filed in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, provides the following description of the transaction-which gave rise to the underlying action. On September 21, 1987, Crow, Rice and Pardee formed Crow, Rice,…