Lawsuit against attorney over revelation of settlement revived

The state Supreme Court on Thursday revived a company's lawsuit against a plaintiff's attorney who revealed to a legal blog settlement terms of a wrongful death case, reversing an appellate court ruling.

The high court overturned the 4th District Court of Appeal's decision, dismissing Monster Energy Co.'s lawsuit against Bruce L. Schechter of Parris Law . Justice Carol Corrigan, writing for the unanimous court, wrote the company's breach of contract claim had enough merit to survive. Monster Energy Company v. Schechter , 2019 DJDAR 6457 (Cal. July 11, 2019).

The case arose from the 2012 death of Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier's 14-year-old daughter, who died of cardiac arrest after drinking two Monster Energy drinks. Crossland and Fournier hired Schechter to pursue wrongful death damages. The case settled in 2015.

The settlement agreement contained a confidentiality clause that purported to bind both "Plaintiffs and their counsel ... to not publicly disclose to any person" information about the suit's culmination, beyond saying the matter had "been resolved."

Schechter signed a document approving the "form and content" of the agreement.

Shortly after the settlement, Schechter provided information to a legal blog about the case, saying it earned the plaintiffs' "substantial dollars," according to the ruling. Monster Energy sued, claiming Schechter breached the confidentiality agreement.

Schechter responded by filing an anti-SLAPP motion, claiming he -- as the plaintiffs' attorney -- was not bound by the agreement.

Corrigan determined the often-used contractual phrase, "approved as to form and content," does not inherently indicate a lawyer's consent to be bound by his client's agreement. Previous courts have also found the phrase, "approved as form and content," means only that the document is accepted by the attorney.

But the language of the agreement might leave Monster with a case against the attorney, the court concluded.

"Here, a factfinder considering all the circumstances could reasonably conclude Schechter agreed to be bound," Corrigan added. "The confidentiality provisions are not only extensive but repeatedly refer both to the parties and their counsel."

Corrigan expressed concern that "routine public disclosure of private settlement terms would chill the parties' ability in many cases to settle before trial," citing reasoning from a 2005 state ruling. Board of Trustees of California State University v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App 4th 889 (Cal. App. 4th. Dist. 2005).

The case has been remanded to superior court.

Monster Energy's attorney, Frank C. Rothrock of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, said he was "very pleased" with the result.

Margaret M. Grignon, a partner with the Grignon Law Firm who represents Schechter, could not be reached for comment.