Smith v. Lewis
530 P.2d 589, 13 Cal. 3d 349 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney has a duty to discover through reasonable research the rules of law that, although not commonly known, may be readily found. An attorney is liable for malpractice if they fail to perform this research and make an informed decision, even if the area of law is unsettled or debatable.
Facts:
- In 1943, Rosemary E. Smith married General Clarence D. Smith.
- During their marriage, General Smith earned retirement benefits from both the State of California and the federal government through his long-term employment with the California National Guard.
- All retirement benefits to which General Smith was entitled were earned during his marriage to Rosemary Smith.
- In February 1967, Rosemary Smith retained attorney Jerome R. Lewis to represent her in a divorce proceeding against General Smith.
- Lewis advised Smith that her husband's retirement benefits were his separate property and not part of the community property to be divided.
- Acting on this advice, Lewis did not plead the retirement benefits as community property in the divorce complaint.
- The retirement benefits, which were the couple's most significant asset, were not considered or divided by the court in the final divorce decree.
Procedural Posture:
- Rosemary E. Smith filed a malpractice action against her former attorney, Jerome R. Lewis, in a California trial court.
- The trial court denied Lewis's motions for nonsuit and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The case was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Smith, awarding her $100,000 in damages.
- Lewis, the defendant, appealed the judgment 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:
Does an attorney commit malpractice by failing to assert a client's claim in a divorce action if the law supporting that claim, while not completely settled, could have been discovered through reasonable research?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
Yes, an attorney commits malpractice by failing to assert a client's claim that could have been discovered through reasonable research, even if the law is not completely settled. While an attorney is not liable for an error in judgment on a doubtful point of law, they have an affirmative obligation to possess knowledge of basic legal principles and to perform standard research to ascertain relevant law. In this case, the community property character of the state retirement benefits was well-established in legal treatises and case law available in 1967. While the characterization of the federal benefits was more debatable, Lewis failed to conduct any research at all, instead dogmatically asserting they were separate property. This failure to research prevented him from exercising the informed judgment to which his client was entitled, and this failure constitutes negligence.
Dissenting - Clark, J.
No, an attorney is not liable for malpractice when the law is unsettled and the failure to assert a claim could be a reasonable choice. In 1967, the law regarding the divisibility of pension benefits in a divorce was highly uncertain, with legal hurdles such as the 'expectancy interest' doctrine, statutory exemptions, and issues of federal preemption. A reasonably well-informed lawyer could have concluded that litigating the pension issue was risky and not in the client's best interest compared to securing a favorable alimony settlement. The plaintiff failed to show that 'but for' the attorney's alleged negligence, she probably would have obtained a share of the pensions, as the uncertain state of the law itself was a significant barrier to recovery.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'error in judgment' rule in legal malpractice, establishing that it does not protect an attorney who is ignorant of the law due to a failure to conduct basic research. The ruling distinguishes between a tactical decision made after a thorough evaluation of unsettled law and a mistake resulting from a failure to investigate the law in the first place. It effectively raises the standard of care by imposing a duty on attorneys to undertake reasonable research even in developing or uncertain legal areas to make an informed, intelligent decision on behalf of their client.
Unlock the full brief for Smith v. Lewis