Freedman

Freedman v. Brutzkus

Good Law
106 Cal. Rptr. 3d 371·182 Cal. App. 4th 1065·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 320
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 11, 2010B213489California1,876 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

The signature block on a contract bears an attorney signature under the legend “approved as to form and content.” Does that signature amount to an actionable representation to an opposing party’s attorney? We conclude that it does not.

Plaintiff and appellant Gary A. Freedman’s complaint against defendants and respondents Mark Brutzkus and Ezra, Brutzkus & Gubner, LLP (collectively Brutzkus), was dismissed following the sustaining of respondents’ demurrer without leave to amend. Appellant argues the trial court erred in finding that he did not state a cause of action against respondents for fraud. The dispositive issue, and apparently one of first impression in this state, is whether an attorney becomes liable to an opposing party’s attorney by signing an agreement “approved as to form and content.”

We hold that this recital indicates that an attorney has advised or is advising his or her own client of the attorney’s approval of the document’s form and content, and does not, by itself, operate as a representation to an opposing party’s attorney that can provide a basis for tort liability. The trial court was correct in ruling to that effect. We affirm the…

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.