Written by Landon Schwob
On March 10, 2014, the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, reaffirmed that insurance brokers owe a limited duty to their clients, which is only “to use reasonable care, diligence, and judgment in procuring the insurance requested by an insured.”
In cases involving claims brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employers may only recover attorneys fees where the plaintiff’s lawsuit is deemed unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious. The courts are still determining what conduct is frivolous, and when an award of attorneys fees to a defendant is appropriate. The concern over awarding defendant-employer attorneys fees stems from the fear of staunching employee suits due to the possibility of an employee earning minimum wage getting stuck footing the attorney bill. A recent opinion by the California Court of Appeals awarding attorneys fees to the employer demonstrates under what circumstances the courts are willing to permit this to happen.
When does an attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by accepting a gift from a client? Under what circumstances is it acceptable for an attorney to accept a gift? This was the issue recently addressed by the State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct.
The State Bar Court of California Review Department recently reviewed a case of an attorney who was, among other things, charged with aiding and abetting the unauthorized practice of law. The case serves as an important reminder to all attorneys who employ non-attorneys that their work must be closely supervised to avoid the unauthorized practice of law. Continue reading
Are you an employer? Then you should have an employee handbook. If you don’t have one, now is the time to procure one. If you do have one, then now is the time to review your handbook to ensure it is up to date with the ever changing employment laws. While the state of California does not require an employer to maintain an employee handbook, a well drafted handbook helps to avoid lawsuits, offers an affirmative defense to litigation, and ensures compliance with complex state and federal regulations.
The California Court of Appeals recently held in Airline Pilots Association International v. United Airlines, Inc. that employer United Airlines could not escape compliance with California’s “Kin Care” Law by creating an employee sick leave plan and trust and claiming it to be subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Continue reading
by Steven Markowitz
Iowa Joins Majority of Jurisdictions Prohibiting Fee Set-Off for Successful Plaintiffs in Legal Malpractice Actions
Recently the Iowa Supreme Court in Hook v. Trevino (2013) 839 N.W.2d 434 (“Hook”) held that a defendant attorney in a legal malpractice action cannot reduce the award to a successful plaintiff by the contingent fee the defendant would have been paid if the underlying action had been successful. The defendant in Hook argued that in the event he had been successful in the underlying matter, the plaintiff would have been contractually obligated to pay 40% of the award to him as part of a contingency fee and any award given to the plaintiff should be reduced by that amount. Continue reading