Source: http://dutytodefend.com/attorney-client-relationship/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:54:04+00:00

Document:
Clients usually hire a lawyer because they do not understand the intricacies of the law nor the judicial process. Lawyers, in turn, are privileged to represent clients only if they are licenced and they adhere to ethical rules. There are two purposes of licensing lawyers: to protect the public and to protect the judicial process. The attorney-client relationship may be well understood as a bundle of other relationships, including a contractual relationship, an agency relationship, and a fiduciary relationship which relationships are collectively imbued with a host of implied powers and duties.
“No one may recover compensation for services as an attorney”, unless they are licensed. Attorneys must also comply with ethical rules promulgated by the California Supreme Court. “The rules of professional conduct . . . are binding upon all members of the State Bar. Attorneys are “officers of the court” who owe duties to the court and to the administration of justice.
The purpose(s) for which the attorney has been retained may be limited by contract. However, even where the scope of representation is expressly limited, the attorney may still have a duty to alert the client to reasonably apparent legal problems outside the scope of the retention.
Attorneys owe four primary duties to their clients. They are: Undivided Loyalty; Full Disclosure; Confidentiality; and Competent Representation.
This duty requires the lawyer: (1) to act to advance the client’s interest and not the interest of the lawyer or anyone else. “[T]he bedrock principle of fiduciary obligation, the duty of loyalty, requires that trustees be disinterested, that they put the interests of those they act for or represent before their own or that of others”; (2) to exercise independent professional judgment not influenced by the lawyer’s interests or any other factors extraneous to the normal attorney-client relationship. See Rule 3-310(B), which identifies certain personal interests and relationships that might cause a lawyer to have a conflict of interest; (3) to refrain from assuming a role adverse to the client; (4) in joint client situations, to not allow the representation of one client to interfere with the representation of the other; (5) to follow the client’s lawful directions on all substantive matters; and (6) to not abandon the client, an attorney’s failure to appear at appellate argument violates the attorney’s duty of respect for the court as well as being a violation of the duty of undivided loyalty to the client.
All attorneys have a duty to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information and document copies when necessary to keep the client informed under Rule 3-500 and to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries from clients under Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(m).
All attorneys have a duty to promptly communicate settlement offers to the client under Rule 3-510.
All attorneys owe a duty of competence to their clients. “In accepting employment to render legal services, an attorney impliedly agrees to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly possess, and he is subject to liability for damage resulting from failure so to perform.” “In the first place, the special obligation of the professional is exemplified by his duty not merely to perform his work with ordinary care but to use the skill, prudence, and diligence commonly exercised by practitioners of his profession. If he further specializes within the profession, he must meet the standards of knowledge and skill of such specialists.” The duty of competence is the only duty that a client cannot waive in advance.
 Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 127 (Birbrower).
 Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125.
 Russell v. Dopp (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 765, 773.
 Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-100.
 Birbrower, supra, 17 Cal.4th at 127.
 Bus. & Prof. Code § 6077.
 Kirsch v. Duryea (1978) 21 Cal.3d 303, 309; see also Rule 3-200, Rule 3-210, Rule 5-200.
 Nichols v. Keller (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1683-1684 (Nichols).
 Fracasse v. Brent (1972) 6 Cal.3d 784, 790.
 Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 930, 940.
 Code Civ. Proc. § 283. See also, Blanton v. Womancare, Inc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396, 403.
 Bus. & Prof. Code § 6104.
 Styles v. Mumbert (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1163, 1167.
 Anderson v. Eaton (1930) 211 Cal. 113, 116.
 Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 282 (Flatt).
 See, People v. Davis (1957) 48 Cal.2d 241, 256-57 [it amounts to taking a position adverse to the client, and therefore violates the duty of undivided loyalty, for an attorney to surrender any of the client’s substantial rights without the client’s “. . . free and intelligent consent after full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances. . . .” citing Anderson v. Eaton (1930) 211 Cal. 113, 116.
 People v. Massey (1955) 137 Cal. App.2d 623, 625.
 Nichols, supra, 15 Cal.App.4th at 1684-1685.
 Nichols, supra, 15 Cal.App.4th at 1685.
 Neel, supra, 6 Cal.3d at 188-89 (Citations omitted).
 Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e)(1).
 See, e.g., State Bar of California Formal Ops. 2004-165, 2003-161, 1999-154, 1993-133, 1981-58 and 1980-52, Los Angeles County Bar Assoc. Formal Ops. 456, 436 and 386, In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 930, 940-41; and United States v. Stepney (2003 N.D. Cal.) 246 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1073-74.
 San Diego Navy Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 366 (Cumis).
 Betts v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 688, 715, citing Lucas v. Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 591.
 Neel, supra, 6 Cal.3d at 188.
 See, Rule 3-400(A); ABA Model Rule 1.8(h); Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.3d 170, 183.

References: § 6068
 v. 
 § 6125
 v. 
 § 6077
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 283
 v. 
 § 6104
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6068
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.