Hooser

Hooser v. Superior Court

Caution
101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 341·2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 864·2000 Daily Journal DAR 12034·84 Cal. App. 4th 997·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9084
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 13, 2000D035392California3,705 words

Opinion

Opinion

McINTYRE, J.

In this case, we decide the issue of whether a judgment debtor who is an attorney must disclose certain client information not subject to the attorney-client privilege in a judgment debtor examination. We conclude, based on the clients’ privacy interests, that the attorney judgment debtor cannot be compelled to disclose to the judgment creditor (1) the identities of clients whose relationship with the attorney has not been disclosed to third parties or (2) client-specific information regarding funds held by the attorney in a client trust account.

Eugene Hooser represented Andrea Ray, his former sister-in-law, in a personal injury action and obtained a $50,000 settlement on her behalf. Apparently as the result of a disagreement between Hooser and Ray regarding attorney fees, Hooser did not distribute any of the settlement funds to Ray. Ray ultimately sued Hooser for misappropriation of the funds and made an offer, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, to settle the action for $79,999.99. Hooser accepted the offer and the court entered a judgment in Ray’s favor.

To collect on the judgment, Ray served Hooser with an order to appear for a judgment debtor’s…

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.