|
0511 DEPUBLISHED Whether an attorney representing a general partner owed attorney-client obligations to limited partners depended on the occurrence and foreseeability of harm to the limited partners, the attorney's intent to affect them, and the limited partners' reasonable belief concerning their relationship with the attorney, all of which could raise triable issues of fact.CitationRONSON v SUPERIOR COURT (Implied Client) 24 CA4 94 [See: Lucas v Hamm 56 C2 583; Goodman v Kennedy 18 C3 335; Responsible Citizens v SuperCt 16 CA4 1717]
|
|
