Roach v. Mead
301 Or. 383, 722 P.2d 1229 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A partner in a law firm is vicariously liable for the professional negligence of another partner when a client reasonably believes the services they requested are part of the partnership's business, even if the negligence occurs within a personal transaction between the partner and the client.
Facts:
- Kenneth E. Mead and David J. Berentson were partners in a law firm.
- William Roach, a client of the firm, had been represented by Mead on several prior occasions.
- In June 1980, Roach sold his business and subsequently sought Mead's advice on investing $20,000 of the proceeds.
- Mead advised Roach to loan the money to him (Mead) personally at 15% interest, telling Roach he would look out for him.
- Relying on what he considered to be legal advice, Roach agreed to the loan.
- Mead prepared a promissory note but failed to secure the loan, failed to advise Roach of the conflict of interest, the risks of an unsecured loan, or that the interest rate was usurious and legally unenforceable.
- Mead later borrowed an additional $1,500 from Roach.
- Mead never repaid the loans and was eventually declared bankrupt.
Procedural Posture:
- William Roach sued David J. Berentson's law partnership in an Oregon trial court for negligence and violations of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA).
- A jury returned a verdict for Roach, finding Berentson vicariously liable for $20,000 on both claims.
- The trial court denied Berentson's motions for a directed verdict.
- Berentson, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the negligence verdict but reversed the verdict on the UTPA claim, which eliminated the associated award of attorney fees.
- The Oregon Supreme Court then granted review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a law partner vicariously liable for the negligent legal advice given by another partner when that advice concerns a personal loan from the client to that partner?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
Yes. A law partner is vicariously liable for another partner's malpractice if the wrongful act was committed in the ordinary course of the partnership's business. The court found that Mead's negligent advice was within the ordinary course of business because Roach reasonably believed he was receiving investment advice, a service within the scope of a law practice. The liability stems not from the partner's act of borrowing money, but from the failure to provide competent legal advice regarding the transaction, such as advising the client of the conflict of interest, the need for security, and the legal risks involved. Citing its precedent in Croisant v. Watrud, the court focused on the client's reasonable belief that the requested service—investment advice—was undertaken as part of the partnership's business. Furthermore, the court referenced its own standards from attorney disciplinary cases, noting that a lawyer borrowing from a client is expected to provide the same level of legal counsel as if the client were lending to a third party. Because Mead's failure to properly advise Roach was a failure in his capacity as a lawyer, the negligence occurred within the scope of the legal partnership, making his partner, Berentson, vicariously liable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of agency principles to professional partnerships, emphasizing that a partner's liability is determined by the client's reasonable perception of the services being rendered. It establishes that a law firm cannot easily disclaim responsibility for a partner's actions in a personal financial transaction with a client if the transaction is intertwined with the provision of legal advice. The ruling effectively broadens the scope of a law firm's vicarious liability by focusing on the nature of the service sought by the client (e.g., investment advice) rather than the specific wrongful act of the partner (e.g., borrowing money). This places a significant duty on firms to oversee their partners' financial dealings with clients to mitigate the risk of malpractice claims.
Unlock the full brief for Roach v. Mead