Legal Opinion

Mazon v. Krafchick

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided March 7, 2005No. 53690-7-IPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*210¶1 Attorney Michael Mazon sued his cocounsel, Steven Krafchick, after they settled a malpractice claim brought against them by their mutual client. Krafchick had failed to serve the complaint on time. Mazon’s primary claim was for $325,000, the contingent fee he expected to get had he and Krafchick successfully pursued their client’s lawsuit. The trial court ruled that cocounsel could not sue one another for lost prospective fees. We agree and hold that it would create a conflict with an attorney’s primary duty to his client to allow cocounsel to sue each other for lost or reduced prospective…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Hartley v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Tank v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Mt. Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. TydingsWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Jones v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mazon v. KrafchickWashington Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Mazon v. KrafchickWashington Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Mazon v. KrafchickCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  4. Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2010
  5. Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API