This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Attorneys
Legal Malpractice
Specific Performance

Thomas v. Sinclair

Published: Mar. 22, 2001 | Result Date: Dec. 18, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SCV9517 Bench Decision –  $936,000

Judge

James L. Roeder

Court

Placer Superior


Attorneys

Facts

Sinclair represented Thomas in a nine-year specific performance action that resulted in Thomas obtaining
residential property worth over $200,000 for no payment due to offsets that Sinclair obtained against the
purchase price. Within minutes after close of escrow, Thomas discharged Sinclair, refused to pay his final bill
of over $17,000 and filed for fee arbitration. Thomas failed to appear at the fee arbitration hearing and instead
sued Sinclair for malpractice.
After the suit was filed, Sinclair learned that Thomas had been declared a vexatious litigant in Alameda
County, due, in part, to the filing of six meritless legal malpractice actions and suing thirteen lawyers for
malpractice in the preceding ten years.
Based in part on this information, Sinclair filed a cross-complaint for promissory fraud alleging that Thomas
always intended to dispute SinclairÆs final bill by raising meritless claims of malpractice and other ethical
violations.

Result

After the first day of trial, Thomas dismissed his malpractice action and paid all of SinclairÆs outstanding fees, plus interest. Thomas waived the jury and the fraud cross-complaint proceeded to trial before Judge Roeder. After five days of testimony, Judge Roeder issued his decision, finding Thomas had committed promissory fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The judge awarded general damages to Sinclair in the amount of $246,000, which represented SinclairÆs attorneysÆ fees in defending the meritless malpractice case, lost professional time, increased malpractice insurance premiums and emotional distress. Additionally, the judge awarded punitive damages to Sinclair in the amount of $690,000, which represented 3 percent of ThomasÆ admitted net worth. The judgment for Sinclair in the amount of $936,000 was entered on Jan. 8, 2001.


#107065

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390