Source: https://www.lacba.org/news-and-publications/lacba-update/update-back-issues-january-2015/update-back-issues---january-2015-jump-page---ethics
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:23:44+00:00

Document:
By Andrew M. Vogel, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of the State of California, and member of LACBA’s Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee. The views this article expresses are solely the author’s.
The California Supreme Court stated three decades ago that “[w]hile an attorney may often rely upon statements made by the client without further investigation, circumstances known to the attorney may require an investigation.”1 But what circumstances warrant going beyond taking a client’s story at face value? How far does the lawyer’s obligation to investigate go? What duties must the lawyer observe in conducting such an investigation?
The need to inquire critically into facts related by a client continues throughout the representation. A recent case, Peake v. Underwood,9 illustrates this point. There, a home purchaser sued the sellers’ agent, alleging the agent failed to disclose a defect at the home. In e-mails to the purchaser’s lawyer and in a subsequent Section 128.7 motion, the agent’s lawyer cited evidence demonstrating that the claims had no factual or legal basis. The trial court granted the agent’s Section 128.7 motion and, as a sanction, dismissed the purchaser’s action and imposed an attorney’s fee award against the purchaser and her lawyer.
Assume that a lawyer has both diligently investigated a client’s claims before litigation and has continued to do so as the case progresses. But assume also that because of or despite these efforts, red flags continue to exist concerning the factual basis for the position the client wants the lawyer to advocate. The lawyer intends to investigate further. What other duties come into play?
Failing to maintain a critical eye toward the veracity of facts related by a client may prove costly. Remaining cognizant of this risk and conducting critical factual inquiries in a manner consistent with a lawyer’s professional obligations are practices well worth adhering to.
1 Butler v. State Bar, 42 Cal. 3d 323, 329 (1986).
3 ABA Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.1 (emphasis added.) Because California has not adopted the ABA Model Rules, they do not establish ethical standards in California. But courts may consider them in the absence of direct or conflicting California authority. State Compensation Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal. App. 4th 644, 655-56 (1999).
4 Mallen & Smith, 4 Legal Malpractice, §29:22 (2014 ed.).
5 ABA Model Code of Prof’l Responsibility, Canon 4, Ethical Consideration 4-1. The Model Code’s Ethical Considerations, while not “mandatory in character,” provide “a body of principles upon which the lawyer can rely for guidance in many specific situations.” See Preliminary Statement to Model Code.
6 Cal. R. of Prof’l Conduct R. 5-200(A), (B).
7 “[F]ederal case law construing Rule 11 is persuasive authority on the meaning of [S]ection 128.7.” Peake v. Underwood, 227 Cal. App. 4th 428, 440 (2014), citations omitted.
8 Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Associates, APC, 206 Cal. App. 4th 1095, 1114 (2012).
9 Peake, 227 Cal. App. 4th 428.
10 Id. at 441, citing Childs v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 29 F. 3d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir. 1994) (brackets in original).
11 Cole, 206 Cal. App. 4th at 1114-17.
12 Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1522 (2013).
14 See Greenberg v. Sala, 822 F. 2d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 1987) (plaintiffs’ counsel made “sufficient inquiry” for Rule 11 by interviewing clients for 100 hours, reviewing records, conducting legal research, and having other counsel review proposed complaint); accord Jensen Elec. Co. v. Moore, Caldwell, Rowland & Dodd, Inc., 73 F. 2d 1327, 1330 (9th Cir. 1989).
15 Peake v. Underwood, 227 Cal. App. 4th 428, 449 (2014).
18 Cal. R. of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-500.
19 Cal. R. of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-100(A); Bus. & Prof. Code §6068(e)(1).
20 Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron, 177 Cal. App. 4th 771, 786 (2009).
21 Cal. R. of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-100(A), cmt. 2.
22 Cal. R. of Prof'l Conduct R. 3-700(A), (B). A more detailed discussion of mandatory withdrawal is beyond this article’s scope.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §29
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §6068
 v.