Blackmon v. Hale
1 Cal.3d 548, 83 Cal. Rptr. 194, 463 P.2d 418 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A partner is liable for a co-partner's misappropriation of a third party's funds when the co-partner acts with apparent authority of the partnership. Additionally, a co-trustee of a client trust account is liable for a breach of trust they negligently enabled their fellow trustee to commit.
Facts:
- In July 1961, plaintiff Blackmon hired attorney James C. Adams to represent him in a real property transaction.
- Adams was practicing law in a partnership with defendant Hale under the firm name 'Adams and Hale.' A third partner, defendant Lee, had withdrawn from the firm two months prior.
- At Adams' instruction, Blackmon purchased a $24,500 cashier's check made payable to the 'Adams and Hale Trust Account' to fund an offer for the property.
- Adams received the check and deposited it into the 'Adams, Hale, and Lee Trust Account,' which was the trust account the Adams and Hale firm continued to use after Lee's departure.
- On August 31, 1961, Adams and Hale dissolved their partnership.
- On September 6, Adams asked Hale to sign a check for $21,386 drawn from the trust account, payable to a new 'J. C. Adams Trust Account.'
- Hale signed the check and delivered it to Adams, who then deposited it into the new account under his sole control.
- Over the next four months, Adams misappropriated the funds for his own use.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Blackmon sued defendants Hale, Lee, United California Bank, and Bank of America in a California trial court to recover $23,500.
- A default judgment was entered against defendant Adams, who is not a party to this appeal.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the remaining defendants (Hale, Lee, and the banks).
- Plaintiff Blackmon appealed the judgment in favor of the defendants to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are law partners liable for a fellow partner's misappropriation of a third party's funds when the third party reasonably believed they were dealing with the partnership, and are the partners, as co-trustees of a client trust account, liable for negligently enabling such misappropriation?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, C. J.
Yes, law partners are liable under these circumstances. First, Hale is liable as a partner because Adams acted with the apparent authority of the partnership. The firm held itself out to the public as 'Adams and Hale, Attorneys at Law,' Blackmon dealt with Adams at the firm's offices, and Adams instructed Blackmon to make the check payable to the firm's trust account. These facts justified Blackmon's reasonable belief that he was dealing with the partnership, not just Adams individually. Under the Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership is bound to make good the loss when one partner, acting with apparent authority, receives and misapplies a third person's money. Second, Hale is liable as a co-trustee. By signing the check that transferred the trust funds to Adams' sole control without proper inquiry or client consent, Hale was negligent. His negligence enabled Adams to commit the wrongful act, making Hale responsible for the resulting loss. A fiduciary who surrenders exclusive control of assets to a co-fiduciary bears an 'impressive burden of explanation,' which Hale failed to meet. Lee, while not liable as a partner because he had withdrawn from the firm, remains potentially liable as a co-trustee for any portion of the unaccounted-for funds, as he had a duty to account for all dealings with the trust property while his name was on the account.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad scope of vicarious liability within a partnership, particularly for professional firms like law practices. It establishes that a partner cannot easily escape liability for a co-partner's fraud by claiming the act was outside the partnership's business if the firm's conduct created the appearance of authority. The case also underscores the stringent fiduciary duties of attorneys as trustees of client funds, extending liability not just for active participation in misconduct but for negligent inattention that allows a co-trustee to misappropriate funds. This precedent puts partners on notice that they have an affirmative duty to supervise firm trust accounts and cannot blindly delegate or surrender control without risking personal liability.
