Facts

Defendant Delman Smith represented plaintiff Maria Ricca in a dissolution action brought against her by Phillip Bristol, her former husband. Bristol was represented by attorney Brad Baugh. Smith was Ricca's third attorney and represented her from January 2006 until March 2008. Ricca and Bristol had been high-tech executives but both were unemployed as of the date Ricca had become a client of Smith.

In March 2007, Ricca obtained employment with a company and was earning $118,000 annually. This job and income were never disclosed to the court nor to Bristol prior to trial in July 2007.

Issues to be resolved at trial included current and past child support. The court issued a statement of decision regarding support based on an income and expense declaration submitted on Ricca's behalf in June 2007, which did not list her current employment and income.

In February 2008, Bristol discovered Ricca's employment and subpoenaed her employment records for the purpose of bringing a support modification motion in March 2008. When the records were received it was discovered that Ricca was employed at the time of the trial in 2007 and had failed to disclose her employment to the court and to Bristol. Bristol then made a motion to set aside the judgment on the basis of fraud.

In March 2008, Smith withdrew as Ricca's attorney. Ricca hired Mark Erickson to represent her in a motion to set aside the judgment. After hearing the case, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Ricca had defrauded the court and Bristol by intentionally failing to disclose her income.

The court set aside the judgment and new support orders were issued. Ricca was sanctioned $35,000 by the court.

This resulted in a loss of community property interest.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Ricca contended that Smith was aware of her employment and income and failed to disclose the info in an income expense declaration submitted before trial.

Finally, Ricca claimed the income and expense declaration that did not disclose her information was unauthorized and fraudulently signed by Smith's paralegal.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Smith claimed that his representation of Ricca met the standard of care and Ricca suffered no loss of community property. Unaware of Ricca's income and employment, Smith requested in writing all of her then income and current expenses prior to trial.

Finally, Smith claimed that Ricca had authorized the paralegal to sign Ricca's name to the income and expense declaration and that information on the declaration was information provided by Ricca.

Result

A jury was impaneled and after three days of trial the jury as waived by both sides. The court heard the case. After the close of evidence, the judge ruled in favor of Smith, determining that he had not violated the standard of care, and entered judgment in favor of Smith.

Length

13 days