Business and corporate lawyer

 

Defendant attorney appealed the judgment of legal malpractice in favor of plaintiff client from the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California).California business and corporate lawyer is very helpful for your business legal issues.

 Plaintiff client had lingering medical symptoms after suffering an injury. Plaintiff engaged the defendant attorney, who filed a medical malpractice action. Plaintiff subsequently moved to New Mexico and claimed that he did not receive correspondence from a defendant that defendant had investigated the claim, determined that it was not meritorious, was seeking to withdraw as attorney, and had ultimately received a court order to withdraw. The medical malpractice case was dismissed for failure to comply with the five-year trial requirement. The jury in the legal malpractice action filed by plaintiff found defendant negligent, and defendant appealed. 

The court reversed the judgment, finding that in its review of the materials available to defendant, the possibility of plaintiff's recovery was remote and defendant's determination that the action was not meritorious could not be characterized as manifestly erroneous. The court held that defendant did all he could to avoid the inference of lack of merit by delaying his nonconsensual withdrawal, and his delay in seeking the formal order did not reflect absence of due care but rather compliance with professional conduct rules.

 The court reversed the judgment against defendant attorney, finding that defendant's determination that plaintiff client's underlying action lacked merit was not erroneous and that defendant properly delayed his nonconsensual withdrawal as attorney to not prejudice plaintiff's case while plaintiff was securing other counsel. Appellant corporation sought review of a judgment entered by the Superior Court of San Diego County (California). The judgment bared the corporation from engaging in the practice of law and exercising corporate rights and privileges within the State of California.

 Respondent alleged that appellant corporation engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by giving its patrons legal advice and consultation and by defending its patrons in actions brought against them. The court rejected appellant's contention that it could engage in the acts complained of by lawfully associating themselves for the practice of law in its corporate capacity under the authority of Cal. Civ Code § 286, finding that appellant could not engage in the practice of law without a special license to do so.

 The court found that appellant was not, as it claimed, merely an agency for the bringing of attorneys and clients together and not itself engaged in the practice of law, as shown by appellant's own certificate issued to its members and by the agreement which it made with its attorneys, which showed that appellant assumed to furnish legal advice, counsel, and services usually done by attorneys and counselors in the ordinary practice of law. Therefore, appellant unlawfully attempted to enter the domain of the practice of law.The court affirmed, holding that respondent had the right to prevent appellant's unlawful exercise of its chartered provisions because appellant had attempted to enter the domain of the practice of law.