Stanley

Stanley v. Richmond

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 551·35 Cal. App. 4th 1070·41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 768·95 Daily Journal DAR 8016·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4598
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 14, 1995A062468California10,840 words

Opinion

Opinion

Phelan, J.

Linda E. Stanley (appellant) timely appeals from a judgment of nonsuit entered as to her claims for breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and breach of contract. These claims against respondents Diana Richmond (Richmond or respondent) and her law firm, Richmond & Chamberlin (collectively, hereinafter, respondents), arose out of a dissolution proceeding in which Richmond represented appellant, and C. Rick Chamberlin (Chamberlin), an attorney with whom Richmond was in the process of forming a new law firm, represented appellant’s husband, Dr. John Stanley (Dr. Stanley). At the close of appellant’s evidence in a jury trial, the court granted respondents’ motion for nonsuit (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (c)), ruling that appellant was required—and failed—to present expert testimony on the applicable standard of care for family law attorneys, and that appellant failed to present evidence that, but for Richmond’s alleged breach(es) of fiduciary duty, appellant would have obtained a better result in the dissolution proceedings.

We conclude that appellant established a prima facie case of breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and breach of contract.…

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.