Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley LLP v. Superior Court
40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 446, 2006 Daily Journal DAR 2901, 137 Cal. App. 4th 579 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a legal malpractice action, a plaintiff is entitled to discover relevant financial and insurance information from a nonparty who was the defendant in the underlying action to prove the 'collectibility' element of causation and damages. A nonparty's constitutional or statutory privacy interests do not create a wholesale bar to such discovery where the information is material and privacy concerns can be mitigated by a protective order.
Facts:
- Starting in 1995, the Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley law firm (Petitioner Firm) represented James B. Panther in a real estate development project.
- Panther lost his multimillion-dollar interest in the project when other participants foreclosed upon him, allegedly due to the way the Petitioner Firm structured the deal and its failure to obtain conflict of interest waivers.
- Panther hired the Chapin and Mazzarella law firms (Attorney Defendants) to sue the Petitioner Firm for legal malpractice in what became the 'underlying action'.
- During the underlying action, the Petitioner Firm disclosed that it carried $4 million in liability insurance coverage.
- In approximately May 2001, on the advice of the Attorney Defendants, Panther settled the underlying lawsuit against the Petitioner Firm for an undisclosed amount.
- Panther later came to believe the settlement was for an amount smaller than the actual value of the case and was 'premature, insufficient and ill-advised'.
Procedural Posture:
- In April 2002, James B. Panther sued the Attorney Defendants in the California Superior Court for legal malpractice.
- During discovery, Panther served a deposition subpoena for the production of business records on the nonparty Petitioner Firm, seeking its financial information, insurance policies, and security filings.
- The Petitioner Firm objected to the subpoena, asserting a right to financial privacy as a nonparty.
- Panther filed a motion in the trial court to compel the Petitioner Firm to produce the requested documents.
- The trial court granted Panther's motion to compel, subject to a protective order.
- The Petitioner Firm filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal, asking it to overturn the trial court's discovery order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a legal malpractice action, does a nonparty witness's right to financial privacy prevent a plaintiff from discovering the witness's financial and insurance information to prove the 'collectibility' element of the malpractice claim, where that nonparty was the defendant in the underlying settled case?
Opinions:
Majority - Huffman, Acting P. J.
No. A nonparty witness's right to financial privacy does not prevent discovery of its financial information when that information is relevant to proving the collectibility element of a legal malpractice claim. To prevail in a legal malpractice case based on the mishandling of a claim, the plaintiff must prove that proper prosecution would have resulted in a favorable judgment and the collection thereof. Collectibility is a crucial component of the plaintiff's case on causation and damages, and is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires evidence, not speculation. While the Petitioner Firm, as a nonparty, has financial privacy interests, these rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the plaintiff's need for relevant information. The requested financial records, insurance policies, and state filings are directly relevant to proving what amount could have been collected from the Petitioner Firm, which is the measure of Panther's damages against the current Attorney Defendants. The trial court appropriately balanced these competing interests by issuing a protective order to mitigate the intrusion on the Petitioner Firm's privacy.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of discovery permissible to prove the 'collectibility' element in complex 'case-within-a-case' legal malpractice actions. It establishes that a defendant from a prior, settled lawsuit cannot use their nonparty status or privacy rights to completely shield their financial records from discovery in a subsequent malpractice action against the plaintiff's former attorneys. The ruling reinforces that collectibility is an essential part of the plaintiff's burden of proof that must be established with competent evidence, not just allegations or old discovery responses. This precedent facilitates plaintiffs' ability to prove damages but also subjects nonparties, who may have believed a dispute was resolved, to further litigation burdens and intrusions into their financial affairs.
