Opinion ID: 2602361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: arguments of richard wiley

Text: ¶ 80 In addition to the issues he raises above with Wiley Rein, Richard Wiley contends the trial court erred in (1) allowing the jury to find he had an attorney-client relationship with MWT Corporation, (2) allowing the jury to award actual damages based on the cash call, and (3) allowing the jury to award punitive damages based on the cash call. We conclude that the jury could properly find an attorney-client relationship between Richard Wiley and MWT Corporation; however, the jury should not have awarded actual and punitive damages against Richard Wiley based on the cash call.
¶ 81 Richard Wiley contends the jury verdict cannot be upheld against him because no attorney-client relationship existed between himself and MWT Corporation. He argues he had no personal attorney-client relationship with MWT Corporation even if MWT Corporation was a client of Wiley Rein. We disagree. ¶ 82 Where a law firm represents a client, each individual attorney within the firm generally has an attorney-client relationship with that client. Indeed, as one court notes, It is axiomatic that the employment of a law firm is the employment of all members of that firm unless there is a special understanding otherwise. Knight v. Guzman, 291 Ill.App.3d 378, 225 Ill.Dec. 677, 684 N.E.2d 152, 154 (1997); see also Streit v. Covington & Crowe, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 193, 196, 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 445 (4th Dist.2000) (stating that by retaining a single attorney, a client establishes an attorney-client relationship with any attorney who is a partner of or is employed by the retained attorney); Burton v. Estrada, 149 Ill.App.3d 965, 103 Ill. Dec. 233, 501 N.E.2d 254, 258 (1986) ([W]hen a client hires an attorney in a partnership the presumption is that he or she has hired the other attorneys in the firm as well, unless there is an agreement otherwise.). In this case, Richard Wiley presents no reason, such as an explicit agreement otherwise, as to why we should conclude he had no attorney-client relationship with the plaintiffs. Thus, if Wiley Rein had an attorney-client relationship with MWT Corporation, Richard Wiley did as well. [15]

¶ 83 As noted above, the cash call did not create a legal obligation. It merely reflected Northstar's belief that such an obligation existed. This, in turn, was disputed by the MWT, Ltd., limited partners, and nothing further occurred. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court erred in allowing the jury to award MWT Corporation actual damages from Richard Wiley personally for Northstar's 1991 cash call.
¶ 84 Having determined there was no proper basis for an award of actual damages, we now address the award of punitive damages for the cash call. Under Utah law, if there are no actual damages, an award of punitive damages is improper. See Atkin Wright & Miles v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 709 P.2d 330, 337 (Utah 1985). As there was no proper award of actual damages for the cash call, an award of punitive damages would be inappropriate.