We had previously advised you about a case in which the California Court of Appeal held that a design professional owed an obligation to pay for the defense of its developer client pursuant to a contract of indemnity, even though the plaintiff had not alleged that the design professional had erred, and even though the jury eventually found that the design professional was not negligent in performing its services.
The design professional in that case sought review from the California Supreme Court or, in the alternative, an order depublishing the Court of Appeal's opinion. The Supreme Court recently denied the design professional's petition, which means that the UDC case remains the law in California.
LACBA County Bar Update, November 2009, Vol. 29 No. 10
Click HERE to view article.
Technical problems can cause difficulty when attempting to comply with ethical rules regarding retainer of client files.
LACBA County Bar Update, June/July 2008, Vol. 28 No. 6
Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore
LPL eAdvisory, May 2008
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Winthroub
LPL eAdvisory, March 2008
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
LPL eAdvisory, December 2007
Beal Bank, SSB v. Arter & Hadden, LLP
LPL eAdvisory, October 2007
What is metadata? Although the document on your computer screen looks like a two-dimensional piece of paper, it is really akin to a three-dimensional folder. The current version on the screen is the top document in the folder. But behind the screen is the rest of the folder, including all the draft versions, and it is stored on your computer. So, you did not just e-mail one document; you e-mailed an entire folder. You provided your opponent with a great deal of information: prior versions, edits, the identity of authors and editors, dates of alterations, the time expended on editing and the electronic notes that your client attached. See, e.g., Hricik and Jueneman, “The Transmission and Receipt of Invisible Confidential Information, 15 No. 1 Prof. Law 18 (2004).