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

lawsuitnegligenceliabilityappealtrialsummary judgmentwillpartnership

lawsuitplaintiffattorneynegligenceliabilityappealsummary judgmentwillpartnership

Related Cases

Redman v. Walters, 88 Cal.App.3d 448, 152 Cal.Rptr. 42

Facts

In 1969, Fred Redman hired the law partnership MacDonald, Brunsell & Walters to represent him in a lawsuit, paying $1,000 for costs. In 1970, William Walters left the partnership and had no direct communication with Redman, who continued to believe he was represented by the partnership. The partnership later dissolved, but Redman's lawsuit was dismissed in 1974 for failure to bring it to trial within five years. Redman subsequently sued the partnership and Walters for negligence in failing to prosecute his case.

In 1969 plaintiff Redman employed legal representation of the 'Law Offices,' or partnership, or association, or some other arrangement of attorneys, known as 'MacDonald, Brunsell & Walters.' The purpose was the commencement and maintenance of a lawsuit for Redman, who advanced 'the sum of $1,000.00 to cover actual costs.'

Issue

The main legal issue was whether William Walters could be held liable for the alleged negligence of the law partnership after he had severed his relationship with it.

Rule

The court applied the principle that a partnership continues to exist for the purpose of winding up its affairs, including fulfilling obligations to clients, even after dissolution.

Analysis

The court found that the partnership of MacDonald, Brunsell & Walters had accepted employment from Redman and that the dissolution of the partnership did not terminate its obligations to him. The court reasoned that unless Redman had consented to nonrepresentation by Walters, the partnership continued to exist in relation to its duties to Redman, making Walters potentially liable for the partnership's negligence.

The court found that the partnership of MacDonald, Brunsell & Walters had accepted employment from Redman and that the dissolution of the partnership did not terminate its obligations to him.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment in favor of Walters, concluding that there was a triable issue of fact regarding Redman's consent to the change in representation and Walters' continuing liability.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Fred Redman, as the Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment that had dismissed his claims against Walters.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

U.S. ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Texas Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 56 Fed.R.Serv.3d 458

U.S. v. Gellene, 182 F.3d 578, 52 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 741

Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa v. Abbott Laboratories, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2013 WL 12140998

Scheehle v. Justices of Supreme Court of Ariz., 508 F.3d 887, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13,072, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 17,038

Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333