During the course of litigation, the plaintiff traveled to the in Boilermaker’s Union Hall Pittsburg, California, where he met with several union employees regarding his injury. During the conversation, these employees informed the plaintiff that he should have filed a third-party claim in regards to the industrial injury. The plaintiff thereafter filed a malpractice suit against the attorney, arguing that the duty to prosecute his claim defendant’s worker’s compensation necessarily included the duty to advise him of different remedies available to him outside of solely that claim. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the claim was barred, as the attorney-client relationship, if any, that existed between the defendant and the plaintiff was limited solely to the subject matter of the plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that no triable facts existed defendant’s regarding the scope of duty. defendant’s The appellate court was not swayed by the trial opinion, and reversed the order court’s of summary judgment. duty of a lawyer today is not that of a solver of legal conundrums: “The he is indeed a counsellor at law. Knowledge of the law is of course essential to his efficiency, but the law bears to his profession a relation very similar to that which medicine does to that of the physicians are those who in addition to that knowledge of physicians…the great therapeutics which is open to all, know not merely the human body but the human mind and emotions, so as to make themselves the proper diagnosis--to know the truth which their patients fail to disclose. " Put another way, the court ruled that even though the defendant only agreed to prosecute the claim, that the broad nature of the claim plaintiff’s worker’s compensation necessarily included a duty of care to advise the client of all available remedies related to the incident, including third party action. the court opined, is such a broad “Worker’s compensation,” term that a lawyer is bound to represent to his client all available remedies at law, namely because a limited understanding of the law may preclude knowledge of all potential client’s recovery that is due to him.
During the course of litigation, the plaintiff traveled to the Boilermaker’s Union Hall in Pittsburg, California, where he met with several union employees regarding his injury. During the conversation, these employees informed the plaintiff that he should have filed a third-party claim in regards to the industrial injury. The plaintiff thereafter filed a malpractice suit against the attorney, arguing that the defendant’s duty to prosecute his worker’s compensation claim necessarily included the duty to advise him of different remedies available to him outside of solely that claim. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the claim was barred, as the attorney-client relationship, if any, that existed between the defendant and the plaintiff was limited solely to the subject matter of the plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, ruling that no triable facts existed regarding the scope of defendant’s duty. The appellate court was not swayed by the trial court’s opinion, and reversed the order of summary judgment. “The duty of a lawyer today is not that of a solver of legal conundrums: he is indeed a counsellor at law. Knowledge of the law is of course essential to his efficiency, but the law bears to his profession a relation very similar to that which medicine does to that of the physicians…the great physicians are those who in addition to that knowledge of therapeutics which is open to all, know not merely the human body but the human mind and emotions, so as to make themselves the proper diagnosis--to know the truth which their patients fail to disclose. " Put another way, the court ruled that even though the defendant only agreed to prosecute the plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim, that the broad nature of the claim necessarily included a duty of care to advise the client of all available remedies related to the incident, including third party action. “Worker’s compensation,” the court opined, is such a broad term that a lawyer is bound to represent to his client all available remedies at law, namely because a client’s limited understanding of the law may preclude knowledge of all potential recovery that is due to him.
PLDF_____FINAL_Presentation_____2014-08-21.docx