Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesattorneynegligencesummary judgmentmalpracticelegal malpracticecase law
defendantdamagesattorneynegligencesummary judgmentmalpracticelegal malpracticecase law

Related Cases

Knight v. Aqui, 966 F.Supp.2d 989
View Case »
Martello v. Santana, 713 F.3d 309
View Case »
McQueen, Rains & Tresch, LLP v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 195 P.3d 35, 2008 OK 66
View Case »
Center Partners, Ltd. v. Growth Head GP, LLC, 2012 IL 113107, 981 N.E.2d 345, 367 Ill.Dec. 20
View Case »
Mack v. City of Minneapolis, 333 N.W.2d 744
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Aloy v. Mash, 38 Cal.3d 413, 696 P.2d 656, 212 Cal.Rptr. 162, 53 USLW 2497, 6 Employee Benefits Cas. 1436

Facts

Marcella G. Aloy employed attorney Eugene A. Mash in January 1971 to represent her in a dissolution action against her husband, Richard, who was on active military duty and not yet receiving a pension. Mash failed to claim any community property interest in Richard's military pension, which was not addressed in the final decree of dissolution entered in December 1971. After Richard retired between 1971 and 1980, Marcella filed a malpractice complaint against Mash in 1980, alleging negligence for not asserting her interest in the pension.

Marcella employed defendant Mash in January 1971 to represent her in the dissolution action. Richard was then on active military service and was therefore not receiving a pension although he had been in the service for over 20 years and was eligible to retire. Defendant failed to claim any community property interest in Richard's pension and it was not put in issue in the dissolution action.

Issue

Did the attorney, Eugene A. Mash, commit legal malpractice by failing to assert a community property interest in his client's husband's military retirement pension during the dissolution proceedings?

Did the attorney, Eugene A. Mash, commit legal malpractice by failing to assert a community property interest in his client's husband's military retirement pension during the dissolution proceedings?

Rule

An attorney may be held liable for malpractice if they fail to undertake reasonable research to ascertain relevant legal principles and make an informed decision, even in areas of unsettled law.

An attorney may be held liable for malpractice if they fail to undertake reasonable research to ascertain relevant legal principles and make an informed decision, even in areas of unsettled law.

Analysis

The court found that there were triable issues regarding whether Mash had exercised informed judgment in his representation of Marcella. Evidence presented by Marcella suggested that Mash had not adequately researched the law regarding military pensions and had relied solely on outdated case law. The court emphasized that an attorney's obligation includes making an informed decision based on a comprehensive understanding of the law at the time of representation.

The court found that there were triable issues regarding whether Mash had exercised informed judgment in his representation of Marcella. Evidence presented by Marcella suggested that Mash had not adequately researched the law regarding military pensions and had relied solely on outdated case law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Mash, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding his negligence, causation, and damages.

The Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Mash, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding his negligence, causation, and damages.

Who won?

Marcella G. Aloy prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of her former attorney, indicating that there were unresolved factual issues regarding the attorney's conduct.

Marcella G. Aloy prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of her former attorney, indicating that there were unresolved factual issues regarding the attorney's conduct.

You must be