|
4777 REVIEW DENIED Evidence was found sufficient to establish that defendant attorney, while representing a person who fraudulently induced the seventy-eight-year-old plaintiff to borrow money using her home as collateral to invest with him in a risky venture, acted as plaintiff's attorney; defendant's failure to advise plaintiff of his conflict of interest and recommend that she seek independent counsel and an investment advisor, his failure to advise plaintiff the 18.41% APR loan was inappropriate for her, and his receiving an undisclosed finder's fee from the lender was sufficient to establish malpractice and breach of fiduciary relationship; defendant's malpractice and breach of duty were causes of damage resulting from the institution of foreclosure proceedings when plaintiff defaulted on the loan because, had he acted properly, the loan transaction probably would not have been completed; the attorney's undisclosed retention of a portion of the loan proceeds constituted financial elder abuse, justifying an award of attorney fees in her successful action against him.CitationWOOD v JAMISON (Elder Abuse) 167 CA4 156 [See: W&IC 15600 etseq; Viner v Sweet 117 CA4 1218, T/AT 5/04]
|
|
