Opinion ID: 2583949
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Zamos's alleged promise to represent Brookes in the malpractice action

Text: Brookes alleged that Jerome Zamos told her he would substitute into and represent her in a malpractice lawsuit Brookes had filed against her former attorneys. However, as the Court of Appeal stated, the transcript of [the] October 30, 1995 settlement hearing in the foreclosure lawsuit . . . shows that before Brookes agreed to the settlement, Brookes and Zamos stated on the record that Brookes had changed her mind regarding Zamos's representation in the malpractice lawsuit and that Zamos was not going to represent Brookes in that lawsuit. On Friday, October 27, 1995, in a phone call he placed to Brookes in open court, Jerome Zamos advised Brookes he would represent her in the malpractice action. However, on Monday, October 30, 1995, Mr. Zamos advised the court he would not be doing so, after all, and that Brookes had another attorney who would be representing her in that matter. Brookes, who was present in court on this occasion, acknowledged, That's correct, yes. Defendants assert there is testimony from Taylor that he was later told by Brookes that Zamos had promised to get back into the case. To the contrary, Taylor's statement was unclear in this regard. In a declaration, Taylor stated Brookes told him she had been promised that Mr. Zamos would continue with the malpractice lawsuit against [her former attorneys] and that it would be taken to a conclusion as long as the offer to settle was accepted. However, Taylor did not claim that his second conversation with Brookes occurred after Brookes acknowledged in court on Monday, October 30, that Jerome Zamos was not going to represent her in the malpractice action. Taylor merely stated he spoke to Brookes on a Friday in late October of 1995 and again on the following Monday.