Legal Opinion

Hetzel v. Parks

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 8, 1999No. 41420-8-IPublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBecker, J.

The question presented in this appeal is whether an attorney, by depositing into his trust account insurance settlement funds belonging to the client of another attorney, owes the other attorney’s client a duty of care actionable in a suit for legal malpractice. We hold that a duty does arise in these circumstances in view of the protective purposes of a trust account, and reverse the order of dismissal entered below.

William Hetzel’s suit was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, a remedy under CR 12(b)(6). Appellate review is de novo. An…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Reid v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Reid v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Hizey v. CarpenterWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Niece v. Elmview Group HomeWashington Supreme Court · 1997

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Cotton v. KronenbergCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  2. Cotton v. KronenbergCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  3. Burg v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  4. Ehsani v. McCullough Family PartnershipWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Burg v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2002

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API