Hall

Hall v. Superior Court

Good Law
108 Cal. App. 4th 706·133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 806·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 710·2003 Daily Journal DAR 5071·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4000
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 12, 2003B162114California3,576 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

This case raises a significant issue as to the duties attorneys owe to nonclients. It arises out of a tragic event. A young girl drowned in a pool at the home of the paternal grandmother while the father and grandmother were present at the house, but the mother was not. The mother retained a lawyer to represent her in a wrongful death action against the grandmother, her husband’s mother. The father never consulted with his wife’s lawyer about the case against his own mother. Only after the mother recovered a settlement in that lawsuit did the father sue his now estranged spouse for half the recovery and her lawyer for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. He alleged the lawyer owed him a duty either to advise him of his rights in connection with the wrongful death action or to name him as a nominal defendant in that action. The lawyer moved for summary judgment, arguing he owed no duty to the father, who was never his client. The trial court denied the motion, finding triable issues of material fact concerning the lawyer’s state of mind.

In this writ proceeding, we conclude the lawyer owed no legal duty to the father as a matter of law and the lawyer, therefore, is…

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.