Court of Appeal of California

Procedural Posture: civil defense attorneys

 

The court was to consider a decision of the Court of Appeal of California, which reversed the trial court's decision that granted a nonsuit in favor of appellee co-counsel in an action brought by appellant attorney for indemnification in connection with a legal malpractice case.

 

Overview

The attorney represented a wife in her divorce proceedings. After the husband filed for bankruptcy, co-counsel was retained to obtain relief from the automatic stay. He gave the attorney bad advice on which the attorney acted, which resulted in the support awards for the wife being declared void. The wife and the husband filed an action against the attorney for malpractice, and the attorney settled the actions in part from her own funds and from insurance funds. The attorney sought indemnification from co-counsel. The appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of nonsuit to co-counsel. The supreme court agreed and affirmed. The supreme court held that whether a claim for indemnity was allowable in concurrent or co-counsel cases was to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The public policy considerations underlying the rule against subrogation and assignment of legal malpractice claims did not arise in this case because the subrogor was not the client, but the attorney held liable to the client for negligence at least partially attributable to co-counsel. Thus, the trial court erred in granting co-counsel nonsuit.

 

Outcome

The supreme court affirmed the appellate court's decision that reversed the grant of nonsuit to co-counsel in the attorney's action seeking indemnification.