Filbin v. Fitzgerald
211 Cal. App. 4th 154
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- The Filbins challenge an eminent domain settlement and claim attorney Fitzgerald's pre-settlement negligence reduced their recovery.
- Fitzgerald advised settlement behavior under CCP section 1250.410, including proposed below-appraisal demands, before replacement counsel took over in July 2007.
- Trial court eventually approved a $2,561,215.51 county offer (net to Filbins approximately $1.41 million) after Fitzgerald's withdrawal and new counsel's actions.
- In 2008 the Filbins sued Fitzgerald for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty; Fitzgerald cross-claimed for quantum meruit and fees.
- Bench trial in 2009 attributed some misstatements to Fitzgerald and found pretrial conduct within standard of care, but伤 damages and causation remained disputed.
- Appellate court reversed the judgment on the complaint (malpractice) in Fitzgerald's favor, affirmed the cross-complaint award, and remanded for entry of judgment in Fitzgerald's favor on the complaint while upholding the cross-claim judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation in a settle-and-sue action | Filbins contend Fitzgerald's malpractice caused a worse settlement. | Fitzgerald argues no legal certainty that his acts caused the lower settlement. | No causal nexus; damages not proven to a legal certainty. |
| Breach of fiduciary duty | Filbins claim Fitzgerald violated fiduciary duties by misstatements and disclosures to trial court. | Fitzgerald contends no fiduciary breach proven; trial findings insufficient. | Fiduciary duty claim rejected; no reversible error on breach. |
| Damages standard in legal malpractice | Damages could be proven by demonstrating a better settlement would have occurred. | Damages not proven to a legal certainty; hindsight speculation barred. | Damages not proven to a legal certainty; judgment for Fitzgerald affirmed on cross-claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshak v. Ballesteros, 72 Cal.App.4th 1514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (burden to show better outcome in settlement is high)
- Slovensky v. Friedman, 142 Cal.App.4th 1518 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (causation and damages in legal malpractice require more than speculation)
- Viner v. Sweet, 30 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2003) (settlement liability requires proof of a greater possible outcome)
- Barnard v. Langer, 109 Cal.App.4th 1453 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (settlement adequacy is largely a hindsight, risk-filled judgment)
- Budd v. Nixen, 6 Cal.3d 195 (Cal. 1971) (damages must be more than nominal and causation linked to fault)
- Agnew v. Parks, 172 Cal.App.2d 756 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959) ("as a legal certainty" damages require actual, not speculative, harm)