Case Summary

4382 In an action for attorney malpractice based on the allegation that defendant attorneys recommended vigorously defending an action that resulted in a judgment against the client for $600,000, implicit in the allegation that the underlying suit could have been settled for $25,000 was the allegation that the other side would have accepted that amount; since the underlying suit was alleged to have been brought as a limited civil action, making $25,000 the most that could have been awarded, the allegation may not have been required; the trial court should have permitted plaintiff to amend the complaint to include allegations the trial court believed were necessary; allegations that the attorneys billed at an inflated rate and for tasks not actually performed were sufficient to plead a claim for breach of the fiduciary duty to charge only fair, reasonable and conscionable fees; the phrase "no guarantees" in the retainer agreement does not necessarily prevent a client's reliance on assurances allegedly made by defendant attorneys from being justified, but raises a question of fact.

CHARNAY v COBERT (High Fees) 145 CA4 170 [See: CCP 1856; Viner v Sweet 30 C4 1232, T/AT 7/03; Bird, Marella v Superior Court 106 CA4 419, T/AT 4/03; Lazar v Superior Court 12 C4 631, T/AT 2/96]