Articles

Moua v. Pittulo

In July, The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two (Los Angeles), published its opinion in Moua v Pittulo, 228 Cal. App. 4th 107 (2014), thanks to the efforts of Los Angeles Lewis Brisbois partner Ken Feldman, who drafted a publication request on behalf of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel. The opinion analyzes the element of causation in a legal malpractice case in the context of a summary judgment motion.

Plaintiff Moua alleged that she did not accept a settlement offer in a family law case due to her attorneys’ negligence. Plaintiff argued that her attorneys’ representation that there was a 50 percent chance that the family court would find her to be a putative spouse caused her to decline settlement offers of both $550,000 and $605,000. Plaintiff asserted that she was damaged when the case was dismissed and she recovered nothing. (Slip op., p. 6.) She then sued the attorneys for legal malpractice. (Id. at p. 4.) The trial court granted the attorneys’ summary judgment motion, finding that there was no triable issue of fact as to causation since the attorneys recommended that plaintiff accept both settlement offers. (Id. at p. 5.)

The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that Plaintiff disregarded her attorneys’ advice to accept the initial settlement offer, and Plaintiff retained new counsel while the settlement offer was still pending. Plaintiff’s new counsel also strongly encouraged her to accept the settlement offer. According to the Court, “to gamble on this 50/50 chance.” Rather, the attorneys strongly encouraged plaintiff to accept the settlement offer. Plaintiff simply ignored this advice. Plaintiff was not relying on her attorneys’ advice in rejecting the settlement, as her attorneys’ advice was to accept the settlement. Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion to the contrary did not create a triable issue of fact. (Slip op., p. 11.)

Related Practices

• Professional Liability