Counsel Concerns

Malpractice Claims and Estoppel. The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Seven, allowed former law-firm clients an opportunity to amend their legal-malpractice complaint against the firm Girardi & Keese for litigation work over rights to the 'Nicky Moonbeam' children's concept. Cavalier v. Lira, B185402. Wanda and Christopher Cavalier had already sued their prior lawyer, Martina Silas, over her handling of the Moonbeam litigation. The trial court in the latest malpractice action found the Cavaliers' claim in the earlier suit that Silas's conduct resulted in an unfavorable settlement of federal Moonbeam litigation estopped the Cavaliers from now proceeding with a similar claim against Girardi & Keese. Reversing and remanding, the court of appeal determined, among other things: 'Although the complaint in the Silas malpractice action alleges the ultimate settlement amount ($150,000) that resulted from the events Silas's negligence set in motion ' rather than alleging in a more general fashion that her negligence reduced the value of the Cavaliers' claims ' the Girardi & Keese complaint, liberally construed, asserts the firm's subsequent acts of negligence further depressed the already greatly reduced value of the federal action.' But the Court of Appeal added that the Cavaliers' complaint against Girardi & Keese as currently stated was 'inartful,' because it included 'the precise amount of the settlement agreement as the basis for their damages claims against Silas, which, if read literally rather than construed liberally, leaves no room for further reduction in the settlement value of the federal action as a result of Girardi & Keese's alleged negligence.'