Highlighted Case

Background

Celebrity client brought action against law firm and attorney for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent concealment, alleging that the failure to timely file a petition before the Labor Commissioner alleging violations of the Talent Agencies Act (TAA) resulted in client's inability to recover approximately $10.6 million he had paid to unlicensed purported agent. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BC308355,Susan Bryant-Deason, J., entered judgment on jury verdict for cli-ent, and law firm appealed.

Holdings

The Court of Appeal, Aldrich, J., held that:
(1) Unfair Competition Law (UCL) did not extend one-year statute of limitations to file TAA claim with the Commissioner;
(2) issue of whether Commissioner would have determined that contract between celebrity client and purported agent was subject to the doctrine of severability was for the jury;
(3) error in instructing jury that contract was void ab initio was prejudicial;
(4) discovery rule did not apply to extend the statute of limitations;
(5) court exceeded its authority when it held that law firm was negligent as a matter of law; and
(6) ruling was prejudicial to law firm.

Reversed and remanded.

	Highlighted Case Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw Background Celebrity client brought action against law firm and attorney for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent concealment, alleging that the failure to timely file a petition before the Labor Commissioner alleging violations of the Talent Agencies Act (TAA) resulted in client's inability to recover approximately $10.6 million he had paid to unlicensed purported agent. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BC308355,Susan Bryant-Deason, J., entered judgment on jury verdict for cli-ent, and law firm appealed. Holdings The Court of Appeal, Aldrich, J., held that: (1) Unfair Competition Law (UCL) did not extend one-year statute of limitations to file TAA claim with the Commissioner; (2) issue of whether Commissioner would have determined that contract between celebrity client and purported agent was subject to the doctrine of severability was for the jury; (3) error in instructing jury that contract was void ab initio was prejudicial; (4) discovery rule did not apply to extend the statute of limitations; (5) court exceeded its authority when it held that law firm was negligent as a matter of law; and (6) ruling was prejudicial to law firm. Reversed and remanded.	Materials Conference materials will be available in booklet form and on CD for the 2010 Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference. Materials will be handed out at the registration desk at the beginning of the conference. For the convenience of those who are unable to attend the conference, conference materials will be available for purchase online through our Registration page. Conference materials purchased online will be shipped within two weeks after the conference concludes.
		Copyright © 2002 - 2009 Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference. All rights reserved.