Aloy v. Mash
6 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1436, 212 Cal. Rptr. 162, 38 Cal.3d 413 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney has a professional duty to undertake reasonable research and make an informed decision on behalf of their client, even in an unsettled area of the law. A breach of this duty constitutes malpractice, and the attorney cannot be shielded from liability by a subsequent, temporary change in the law that would have rendered the client's unasserted claim invalid.
Facts:
- In January 1971, Marcella G. Aloy hired attorney Eugene A. Mash to represent her in a marital dissolution action against her husband, Richard.
- At the time, Richard was an active-duty member of the military who had served for over 20 years, making his retirement pension vested and eligible for collection upon retirement.
- Mash failed to assert any community property interest in Richard's military pension during the dissolution proceedings.
- When asked by Aloy, Mash stated that she had no right to the pension because Richard was still on active duty.
- Mash's legal opinion was based on his memory of a single 1941 case, French v. French, and he conducted no further research into the matter.
- The law regarding the community property character of vested military pensions was unsettled in California in 1971.
- The final decree of dissolution was entered in December 1971 without dividing or mentioning the pension.
- Richard retired from the military sometime between 1971 and 1980.
Procedural Posture:
- Marcella G. Aloy filed a legal malpractice complaint against her former attorney, Eugene A. Mash, in a California trial court.
- Mash filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing his conduct was not negligent because the law was unsettled.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mash.
- Aloy appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney commit professional negligence by failing to conduct reasonable research and assert a claim for a client in an unsettled area of the law, where the inaction is based on an incomplete understanding of a single case?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaus, J.
Yes. An attorney commits professional negligence by failing to research and make an informed decision regarding a client's claim in an unsettled area of law. An attorney has an obligation to undertake reasonable research to ascertain relevant legal principles and make an intelligent assessment of the problem. Unlike the attorney in Davis v. Damrell who conducted thorough research, Mash acted on an incomplete reading of a single case and failed to appreciate the critical distinction between a vested and non-vested pension. The court rejected Mash's 'serendipity defense'—that his negligence was harmless because the U.S. Supreme Court's later decision in McCarty v. McCarty temporarily held such pensions were not community property. The court noted that McCarty was swiftly nullified by Congress and given almost no retroactive application, making it irrelevant to the assessment of Mash's conduct in 1971. The key inquiry is the quality of the attorney's professional conduct at the time of the representation, not subsequent legal developments.
Dissenting - Reynoso, J.
No. An attorney whose advice is ultimately determined to be correct should not be held liable for malpractice. The majority's holding creates an anomaly where an attorney giving correct advice on an unsettled issue may be liable, while one giving incorrect advice might not be. The proper test should first ask, as a matter of law, whether the attorney's advice was erroneous. Only if the advice was legally incorrect should a factual inquiry into negligence proceed. Here, Mash's advice was supported by the existing case French v. French and was consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's later holding in McCarty. Since his advice was not erroneous, the malpractice claim should fail, regardless of the extent of his research.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the standard of care for attorneys dealing with unsettled legal issues, reinforcing the precedent set in Smith v. Lewis. The court's decision firmly establishes that the focus of a malpractice claim is on the attorney's process—the duty to perform reasonable research and make an informed judgment—rather than on the ultimate correctness of the legal advice. By rejecting the 'serendipity defense,' the court prevents attorneys from escaping liability for negligent research simply because a subsequent, temporary change in law might have coincidentally supported their position. This holding incentivizes thoroughness and diligence, ensuring that clients receive representation based on a competent analysis of the law as it exists at the time of the legal service.
