|
4594 In a tenant's action arising from a lease to which the landlord's attorneys were not parties, and in the absence of evidence that the attorneys were acting for their own benefit or expected financial advantage over and above their fees for representing the landlord, a claim against the attorneys for civil conspiracy should not have been permitted to go forward.CitationPANOUTSOPOULOS v CHAMBLISS (Attorney Conspiracy) 157 CA4 297 [See: CivC 1714.10, 47; Pavicich v Santucci 85 CA4 382, T/AT 1/01; Berg & Berg v Sherwood 131 CA4 802, T/AT 9/05]
|
|
