Nichols v. Keller
15 Cal. App. 4th 1672, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 601 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney retained to represent a client on a workers' compensation claim has a duty to advise the client of other available remedies, including potential third-party civil actions. If the attorney chooses to limit their representation, they must clearly inform the client of the limitation and advise them to consult other counsel.
Facts:
- In December 1987, the plaintiff, a union boilermaker, was working on scaffolding approximately 50 feet above the ground at a construction project.
- The plaintiff was employed by Zurn Industries, a subcontractor, while Kiewit Industrial was the general contractor for the project.
- An object, believed to be a four-by-four-inch piece of steel, struck the plaintiff on the head, causing a significant laceration and other injuries.
- On February 24, 1988, the plaintiff and his wife met with attorney E. Paul Fulfer to discuss his legal rights regarding the accident.
- At this meeting, Fulfer had the plaintiff sign an application for workers' compensation benefits, which Fulfer then filed.
- Fulfer then associated another attorney, Edward Keller, to prosecute the workers' compensation claim.
- Neither Fulfer nor Keller advised the plaintiff of the possibility of a third-party civil lawsuit against the general contractor or any other entity.
- On July 7, 1989, the plaintiff met with a new attorney and learned for the first time that he could have pursued a third-party claim.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a complaint for legal malpractice in Stanislaus County Superior Court (a trial court) against attorneys Fulfer, Keller, and their respective law firms.
- Both defendant Fulfer and defendant Keller filed separate motions for summary judgment.
- The defendants argued in their motions that their attorney-client relationship with the plaintiff was limited solely to the workers' compensation claim and that they had no duty to advise on other civil claims.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that the representation was limited and the attorneys had no duty to advise on other possible alternatives.
- The plaintiff's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court.
- The plaintiff (as appellant) appealed the entry of summary judgment to the Court of Appeal.
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 retained to prosecute a client's workers' compensation claim have a professional duty to advise that client on the potential for a third-party civil action arising from the same incident and the applicable statute of limitations for such a claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, Acting P. J.
Yes. An attorney who agrees to represent a client in a workers' compensation claim owes that client a duty of care to advise on available remedies, including potential third-party actions. The court reasoned that a trained attorney is more qualified than a lay client to recognize and analyze the client's full spectrum of legal needs. Even when an attorney's retention is expressly limited, they have a duty to alert the client to reasonably apparent legal problems that fall outside the scope of that retention. If counsel elects to limit their representation, they must make such limitations unequivocally clear to the client and advise them of the possible need for other counsel. The foreseeability of harm to a client who is not advised of other remedies compels the finding of this duty.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of an attorney's duty, extending it beyond the explicit terms of the retention agreement to include advice on reasonably apparent related claims. It establishes that attorneys, particularly in specialized fields like workers' compensation, cannot operate with tunnel vision. The ruling places an affirmative duty on attorneys to either investigate potential collateral claims, such as third-party tort actions, or to very clearly and explicitly limit the scope of their representation in writing and advise the client to seek separate counsel. This precedent protects clients from unknowingly forfeiting legal rights and increases the standard of care for attorneys taking on limited-scope representations.
Unlock the full brief for Nichols v. Keller