Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Re: Attorney's ''due diligence'' requirements

A lawyer should always advise a client of the possibilty of being liable for costs and potentially attorney fees if he or she is unsuccessful. There is also a possibilty of malicious prosection; however, this tort is hard to prove. If you fax me your documentation and judgment to 714 363 0229, I will advise you of any case you have without charge for consultation.

Re: Attorney's ''due diligence'' requirements

The California State Bar maintains an ethical hotline. When in doubt I call the hotline. Which I did awhile back, and the State Bar gave me the following cases and rules to read. FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS RULES -- Rules of Professional Conduct - 3-200 Prohibitive Objectives -- Rules of Professional Conduct - 5-200 -- Business and Profession Code Section 6068 - Attorney's Duty to Investigate Case -- Butler -v- State Bar (1986) 42 Cal3rd 323 (329) -- Paul Oil Company -v- Fed. Mutual Insurance (1998) 154 Fed 3rd 1049 -- You can find these rules and cases in your county law library. So I'll not summarize them for you. You're absolutely correct about a duty to not assume everything the client tells the attorney is the gospel. And the attorney has some exposure. My personal test isn't to assume everything the client says is true. However, many times there are statutes running and I do not personally believe that my duty is to thoroughly investigate the factual allegations beyond a duty of reasonablness. That's why the rules of prosecuting a civil lawsuit involves investigation and discovery. Things the client pays for. The practice today is to listen to the client's allegations, look over/read the documentation provided the attorney by the client, take the case, and use the client's retainer to pay the overdue telephone bill.