Mirabito

Mirabito v. Liccardo

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 265·4 Cal. App. 4th 41·5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 571·92 Daily Journal DAR 2959·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1912
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 1992A049391California2,090 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peterson, J.

Kathleen Liccardo, in her capacity as executrix of the will of Leonard J. Liccardo, appeals from a civil judgment entered after a jury verdict awarding damages to respondent Edmond Mirabito. Appellant presents several arguments on appeal, but maintains primarily that the trial court erred when it allowed the jury to consider the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar when reaching its decision. We disagree and affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Edmond Mirabito (hereafter Edmond) operated a shoe shop in San Francisco for over 41 years. An astute investor, Edmond placed the proceeds of his endeavors into a number of successful investments, including income property in San Francisco, raw land in Santa Rosa, and various stocks.

Leonard J. Liccardo (hereafter Leonard) was Edmond’s second cousin. Edmond had known Leonard since he was born and had helped him through law school. Edmond attended Leonard’s moot court hearings and was proud of his accomplishments. After Leonard completed law school, Edmond employed him as his attorney on numerous occasions, having him draft leases and prepare legal documents.

By 1983, Edmond was ready to retire so he went to…

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.