Wantuch

Wantuch v. Davis

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 160·32 Cal. App. 4th 786·39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 47·95 Daily Journal DAR 2485·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1422
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 1995B079141California3,225 words

Opinion

Opinion

Grignon, J.

A prison inmate brought a pro se action against his former criminal defense attorney and others, alleging legal malpractice and other causes of action. The former attorney cross-complained for attorney fees arising out of the prior representation. When the prisoner failed to appear at a status conference, the trial court denied his motion for appointed counsel, denied his request to be transferred from state prison to court, struck his complaint and answer to the cross-complaint and entered judgment against him. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in striking the prisoner’s pleadings and entering judgment against him. We reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the prisoner’s right of access to the courts.

Facts and Procedural Background

Albert John Wantuch hired Attorney Daniel Godfrey Davis to represent him against criminal charges. A written fee agreement obligated Wantuch to pay Attorney Davis “a flat fee of $150,000 for [Attorney Davis’s] representation of [Wantuch] through the dismissal of criminal charges, acquittal of [Wantuch] at trial, filing of appropriate Notice of Appeal or termination of the Agreement,…

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.