 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Pisano10/31/2002
the retainer agreement with . . . Fay," the court concluded that "this is not true in the present case" brought by Miller against Pisano. (Italics added.)
Specifically, the trial court found as follows: "From the evidence in this present case it is established that Joseph Pisano was never in fact a partner of Mitchell Ellis, and `Pisano and Ellis' did not hold themselves out as partners. Clearly they were an association of attorneys, sharing office expenses. Evidence to the contrary is not credible. [ ] The evidence establishes that in the underlying case Miller was working with Ellis alone, and was well aware that Pisano was not involved. As an experienced attorney he [Miller] did in fact realize or at least should have realized, that `Pisano and Ellis' was not a law partnership, but merely an association of two attorneys, sharing office expenses, with each attorney being independent of the other. (Furthermore, Corp. Code[, §] 24000-24001, et seq. as argued by Miller is inapplicable to the facts of this case. Those code sections relate to liability of the ssociation, not individual members. There is no such formal, legal ssociation in this case.) [ ] In conclusion on this issue, Miller was not misled by the letterhead of Pisano and Ellis, and he did not rely on the entity name when he agreed to be associate counsel with Ellis. It would not be legally correct nor equitable to impose liability on Pisano. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Joseph Pisano." (Italics added.)
In view of Miller's forthright avowal that "there is no conflicting evidence on the issue" of Pisano's relationship with Ellis, these findings of the trial court must be accepted as fully supported by the evidence and indisputably established. Accordingly, all that remains for us is to review de novo the trial court's ultimate legal conclusion regarding Pisano's non-liability, as drawn from the factual findings set forth in its Statement of Decision. Nevertheless, despite his assertion that de novo review is appropriate, Miller proceeds to cite factual evidence which, he contends, establishes Pisano's vicarious liability for Ellis's malpractice as "a member of the law firm" or "the entity under the name of . . . `Pisano and Ellis," under the statutes governing partnerships and unincorporated associations. (Corp. Code, §§ 16305- 16306, 24001.)
Either the trial court's factual findings are based on undisputed evidence, or they are not. To put it bluntly, Miller cannot have it both ways. As seen, the trial court found as fact that (1) Pisano had "no actual, legal or economic participation" in the Fay case; (2) Pisano was never a partner of Ellis and the two did not hold themselves out as such; (3) Pisano and Ellis were merely an association of two independent attorneys sharing office expenses; (4) Miller himself "was well aware that Pisano was not involved" in the Fay matter, and realized that "Pisano and Ellis" was not a law partnership; and (5) the law of unincorporated associations was inapplicable to the relationship of Pisano and Ellis, because there was no formal legal association between them. It is these undisputed factual findings that we must consider in applying the law to determine de novo whether Pisano had any legal liability for Ellis's malpractice.
Accepting the trial court's factual findings as true, as we must, Miller's claims of error necessarily collapse of themselves. An action for equitable indemnity is premised upon a joint legal obligation to another for damages. (Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1994) 8 Cal.4th 100, 114-115; Children's Hospital v. Sedgwick (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1780, 1787.) If the evidence establishes that a person is not a concurre
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|