Legal Opinion
Held v. Arant
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 3, 1977No. Civ. 48550PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
THOMPSON, J.
The case at bench raises the issue of the right of a lawyer sued for professional negligence to seek indemnity from another lawyer subsequently retained by the suing client in the same matter on the theory that the second lawyer’s negligence erihanced rather than reduced the initial loss. Because reasons of policy peculiar to the tripartite relationship of attomey-client-adversaiy override the principle of equitable indemnity enunciated in cases such as Herrero v. Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 69 [38 Cal.Rptr. 490, 8 A.L.R.3d 629] and Niles v. City of San Rafael (1974) 42…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Herrero v. AtkinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & BaerwitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Norton v. HinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Green Spring Farms v. KerstenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
- Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Fox v. PollackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & HarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Pollack v. LytleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.