 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Linden v. Siamas1/31/2002
BR>
Plaintiff asserts that defendants breached their fiduciary duty to him by wrongfully terminating the representation after the arbitration award. This assertion, too, lacks legal and factual support. Although plaintiff claims defendants refused to pursue confirmation of the award in superior court, the record evidence establishes that the attorney-client agreement expressly excluded representation in any post-arbitration matters. In any event, competent evidence establishes that defendants in fact offered to continue the representation through confirmation of the award "as long as there is no actual or prospective conflict of interest" between their respective positions. Plaintiff, not defendants, declined to continue the representation on those terms, choosing instead to hire new counsel to attempt to "correct" the award to include an attorney's fees award. Nor were defendants ethically required to pursue such a "correction" of the award, an attempt they determined lacked legal merit and risked exposing defendant himself to liability for PAI's fees. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-700(C)(1)(a).)
Plaintiff also asserts defendants wrongfully abandoned the representation in failing to promptly return all of his client papers as required by Rule 3-700(D) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Again he cites no competent evidence to support this claim, relying primarily on discovery motions that were not offered in the trial court and are, accordingly, beyond the scope of our review. (Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge Transp. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1; Pulver v. Avco Financial Services. (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 622, 631-632.) His sole remaining factual support consists, once again, of testimony from his declaration ruled inadmissible in the trial court.
Faced with defendants' evidence that their withdrawal was consistent with their contractual and ethical obligations, plaintiff failed to meet his burden of presenting evidence showing any triable issue of fact as to this claim. (Ochoa v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485.) The trial court correctly granted summary judgment.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
McGuiness, P.J.
Parrilli, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|