Appellants sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) in favor of respondent attorney in their action for damages for the attorney’s alleged bad faith and negligence in the performance of his duties and of the denial of their motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A critical issue was undetermined because one party’s employment attorney San Diego was not present during evidentiary hearing.
Table of Contents
Overview
Appellants sought damages for respondent attorney’s alleged bad faith in refusing to settle appellants’ claims against the estate of deceased and for his alleged negligence in representing the estate of deceased in the wrongful death action. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of respondent attorney, and the lower court denied appellants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Appellants argued that there was no substantial evidence supporting a verdict for respondent. Respondent argued that the questions as to whether he breached any duty to the estate and whether such breach was the proximate cause of the excess judgment were questions of fact. The court affirmed the denial of appellant’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of respondent attorney with directions that the case be retried on the single issue of proximate cause. The issue of negligence, which was one of law, was erroneously submitted to the jury as a question of fact. The error in submitting the issue of negligence to the jury was prejudicial because it might have precluded the jury from ever reaching the issue of proximate cause.
Outcome
The lower court’s order denying appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was affirmed; its judgment in favor of the attorney was reversed with directions that the case be retried on the single issue of proximate cause.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-Although a notation that an attorney approved a settlement agreement as to form and content meant that the attorney approved the agreement for the client’s signature, the notation did not, as a matter of law, preclude a factual finding that the attorney also intended to be bound by signing an agreement that contained substantive provisions imposing duties on counsel; [2]-A breach of contract claim alleging that the attorney had violated the confidentiality provisions, which were extensive and repeatedly referred both to the parties and their counsel, had the requisite minimal merit sufficient to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1), because a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the parties mutually consented under Civ. Code, §§ 1565, 1580, to bind the attorney to the confidentiality requirements.
Outcome
Judgment reversed.
