Case Summary

4457 Although an attorney asserted he was defending a particular client who was charged with white collar crime as part of his own separate practice, evidence tending to establish that a law firm of which the attorney was a non-equity partner listed him at its website as head of its white-collar criminal defense section, that the client had retained the firm, that the firm billed the client for costs, that the attorney used the firm's letterhead in corresponding about the case and identified his affiliation with the firm on the record in various proceedings connected with the case, coupled with allegations that the attorney arranged to remove cash from the client's house to post bail for the client and to assure payment of the firm's fee, was sufficient to raise a question of fact about whether the attorney was acting on behalf of the firm making the firm vicariously liable for his actions; evidence that a defendant exercised dominion over an indeterminate number of bags containing an undetermined sum of money is not sufficient to support an action for conversion or to result in a constructive trust.

PCO v CHRISTENSEN, MILLER ... (Respondeat Partnership) 150 CA4 384 [See: Torres v Parkhouse 26 C4 995, T/AT 10/01; Lisa M v Henry Mayo 12 C4 291, T/AT 1/96; McKell v Wa Mu 142 CA4 1457, T/AT 10/06]