Part A - Sample fact pattern and jury instructions for malpractice of attorney in handling divorce case
FACTS
Attorney Adams represented Ruben in a divorce with Maria. The result of the divorce was a division of assets between the two parties. The assets consisted of real property and cash. Maria received the real estate that was community property, as well as a large lump sum cash payment. Ruben later discovered that the property Maria received in the divorce may have been significantly undervalued in the divorce decree, which may have resulted in a larger cash payment to Maria than she would have otherwise received.
Ruben did not know when he hired Attorney Adams that: 1) Adams in the past had represented Maria as her real estate lawyer and real estate development lawyer related to separate property that she owns; and 2) Maria still owes Adams a considerable fee for work he performed for her land development company.
Ruben brings a legal malpractice suit against Adams, alleging breach of fiduciary duty.
INSTRUCTIONS
The instructions set forth below represent one way in which the instructions in a legal malpractice case for breach of fiduciary duty could be structured. There are other equally acceptable ways to arrange these instructions, provided the general design of the 302 series of instructions (UJI 13-302A through 13-302F ) is followed. The goal is to provide the jury with a clear set of instructions. Logic should be the guide in sequencing instructions. For purposes of this example, preliminary jury instructions (e.g., those found in Chapter 1), general instructions (e.g., those found in Chapter 2 and Chapter 20), and verdict forms have not been included. (Examples of verdict forms can be found in Chapter 22.) For purposes of trial, such instructions should be used as appropriate given the facts and circumstances of the case. These instructions have been modified from the Uniform Jury Instructions where appropriate to reflect the issues in dispute in the fact pattern.
UJI 13-302A
In this civil case, Ruben is seeking compensation from Adams for damages Ruben claims were caused by Adams' failure to disclose that Adams had a conflict of interest in representing Ruben because he had previously represented Maria in a substantially related matter, and is owed money by Maria.
UJI 13-302B
To establish his claim of legal malpractice, Ruben has the burden of proving that Adams put his own interests before those of Ruben, and that Adams did not disclose his representation of Maria and obtain a written waiver of conflict.
UJI 13-302C
Adams denies Ruben's contentions. Adams contends there was no conflict of interest because the previous representation of Maria regarding her separate property was not substantially related to the divorce proceeding.
UJI 13-2401
For Ruben to recover from Adams on Ruben's claim of legal malpractice, you must find that the following have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Adams owed a duty to Ruben;
2. Adams breach that duty; and
3. That breach was a cause of a loss to Ruben.
UJI 13-2404
A lawyer has a fiduciary duty to
1. Have undivided loyalty to the client.
2. Disclose conflicts of interest to the client and obtain informed consent in writing that the client has waived the conflict.
A lawyer who fails to do so breaches his fiduciary duties.
UJI 13-2406
A lawyer has a duty of loyalty to a client. A lawyer breaches the duty of loyalty by putting the lawyer's own interests, or the interests of another, before those of the client.
UJI 13-2411
The Rules of Professional Conduct provide guidance to lawyers. Evidence regarding the Rules of Professional Conduct may be considered in deciding whether Adams owed Ruben a duty, and whether Adams breached that duty. However, that evidence is not conclusive. You must consider all of the evidence that you have heard in deciding the questions of duty and breach.