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.

CONFIDENTIAL

Mar. 2, 2004

Attorneys
Legal Malpractice
Breach of Duty

Confidential

Settlement –  $280,000

Court

San Francisco Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jonathan Allan Klein
(Klein, Hockel, Iezza & Patel PC)

Josh Henderson
(Norton Rose Fulbright)


Defendant

John Trockmorton

J. Michael Matthews

Pamela Phillips


Facts

According To The Plaintiff: While representing the plaintiffs in a breach of contract action, the defendants served a C.C.P. Section 998 offer to compromise that omitted a provision that each party would bear its own attorney fees and costs. The plaintiff in that action was deemed the prevailing party under the attorney fees clause in the underlying contract and was awarded several hundred thousand dollars in attorney fees and costs. After the award, the plaintiff sued, alleging that the omission of fees and costs language was outside the standard of care. According To The Defendant: The defendant attorneys advised their clients several times that they should consider settlement at a reasonable amount, that the underlying case was a case of liability, and that there was an attorney fees clause in the underlying contract which created an exposure to a substantial award of fees. After the plaintiff in the underlying case accepted the statutory settlement offer that the attorneys had served, defendant attorneys contested the claim for fees and won. The trial court's ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeal in a decision of first impression. There was little evidence that any breach of duty by defendants actually caused damages to their clients. The settlement reported in this summary is in an amount substantially less than the actual award in the underlying case.

Settlement Discussions

The defendants settled for $280,000.


#125760

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

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