 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Zuckerman4/6/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
This appeal arises out of a legal malpractice action brought by plaintiff and appellant Michael Williams against defendants and respondents the Law Offices of Carpenter & Zuckerman, and attorneys Paul Zuckerman, John Carpenter and Candice S. Klein, who represented appellant in an earlier medical malpractice action. Appellant appeals from the summary judgment entered against him and in favor of respondents on appellant's second amended complaint. The legal malpractice action is founded on the circumstances under which respondents withdrew from representing appellant in the underlying action. He contends there were questions of material fact that precluded summary judgment. We reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Retention of Respondent Law Firm.
Viewing the evidence in accord with the usual rules on appeal from summary judgment, we glean the following. Some time in 1997, appellant contracted Valley Fever. As a result of complications from that condition, including multiple back surgeries, he became a spastic paraplegic.
On December 9, 1998, appellant retained respondents to represent him on a contingency fee basis in a medical malpractice action against various doctors and hospitals who initially treated him for Valley Fever and its complications. Paragraph 11 of the retainer agreement provided that respondents "may withdraw from the client's representation in this claim at any time on reasonable notice to the client"; paragraph 16 provided that "any notices under this agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly served if delivered in person to the party for whom it is intended, or if delivered at or sent by registered or certified mail to the business address of the person for whom it is intended, as specified in this agreement."
In February 1999, respondent Klein contacted a medical expert in Valley Fever to review appellant's medical records. Between March 9, 1999, and September 19, 1999, the expert spent about two-and-one-half hours reviewing those records and discussing them with counsel. Before hearing the expert's opinion, respondents filed a complaint in the underlying action on March 8, 1999. After receiving the expert's unfavorable opinion in the fall of 1999, respondents determined that they no longer wished to represent appellant in the underlying action. They did not immediately communicate this to appellant.
B. Discovery in the Underlying Action.
On January 14, 2000, defendant in the underlying action, Dr. Kamran Hakimian, propounded a document request, and form and special interrogatories on appellant by serving respondents. After the statutory time to respond had passed, counsel for Hakimian wrote to respondent Zuckerman demanding responses without objection. On June 15, 2000, defendant Hakimian filed motions to compel, which were set for hearing on July 10, 2000. On June 30, 2000, Zuckerman filed a declaration in opposition to Hakimian's motion to compel in which he requested that the motion be continued for 30 days, explaining that " ue to a breakdown in communications with [appellant], [respondents were] forced to file a motion to withdraw as attorney of record," and " s a result of the lack of communication and cooperation between my office and [appellant], [appellant] has not provided [Hakimian] with respons
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|