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
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

[REDACTED] v. Elliott J. Wachtell, individually and dba Law Offices of Elliott J. Wachtell, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Aug. 13, 2016 | Result Date: Jul. 7, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC574470 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Pro Per


Defendant

Alexandra C. Aurisch
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney)

David S. Eisen
(Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Elliott Wachtell, individually and dba Law Offices of Elliott J. Wachtell, involving allegations of legal malpractice.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
In 2008, defendants allegedly substituted in to represent plaintiff in an underlying case before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. In 2014, defendants allegedly represented plaintiff in reaching a settlement in the underlying matter. At the time of the settlement, the County of Los Angeles Child Support Services Dept. allegedly had a lien on the underlying action for past due child support payments. Plaintiff allegedly agreed to enter into the settlement on the express condition and based on defendants' representations that defendants had negotiated a settlement with the county to pay its claims with the settlement proceeds. Plaintiff thereafter entered into a settlement and agreed to attribute almost $27,000 of the settlement proceeds to the county to settle the child support payment lien.

Despite the settlement, however, the county continued to have a claim against plaintiff for child support. Plaintiff sought defendants' further assistance on the matter, but defendants refused. Consequently, because of his outstanding debt to the county, plaintiff remained unable to visit his children. Plaintiff sued defendants, asserting causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants moved for summary judgment, challenging the sufficiency of plaintiff's allegations.

Result

The trial court granted Watchel's summary judgment motion.

Other Information

FILING DATE: March 9, 2015.


#119958

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

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