Case Summary

5016 Where an attorney serving as co-counsel with two law firms in an underlying action sued one of the firms for conversion and interference with a prospective economic advantage after he was allegedly forced out of the case and denied his share of settlement proceeds, the trial court improperly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff had no immediate right to possess the money. Triable issues of fact remained regarding whether the plaintiff had a valid lien on his share of the settlement proceeds, and there was evidence tending to show that the other firms' members may have acted with the intent to negotiate the settlement draft without his signature.

PLUMMER v DAY/EISENBERG (Conversion of Settlement Proceeds) 184 CA4 38 [See Trimble v Steinfeldt, 178 CA3 646; Carroll v Interstate Brands Corp, 98 CA4 1168; Prof Conduct Rule 3-300; State Bar Formal Opinion No. 2006-170]