Court Opinion

ID: 9791359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:09:37.191934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:35.742253
License: Public Domain

CLARK, J.—I dissent.
The evidence is insufficient to prove plaintiff lost $100,000 from her lawyer’s negligence in 1967. There is no direct evidence a well informed lawyer would have obtained an award of the husband’s pensions in the wife’s divorce, nor does the record provide such inference. Rather, the *366state of the law and the circumstances of the parties reveal lawyer Lewis reached a reasonable result for his client in 1967.
To establish liability for negligence, a plaintiff must show defendant’s negligence contributed to injury so that “but for” the negligence the injury would not have been sustained. If the injury would have occurred anyway—whether or not the defendant was negligent—the negligence was not a cause in fact. (4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1970) § 622, pp. 2903-2904; Rest.2d Torts (1966) § 432; Prosser, The Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) p. 236 et seq.) “It is not enough merely to show that the probabilities were evenly divided. The evidence must be such that it could be found the balance of probabilities was in plaintiff’s favor. (Prosser, ‘Proximate Cause in California,’ 38 Cal.L.Rev. 369, 378-379.)” (Singh v. Frye (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 590, 593 [2 Cal.Rptr. 372].)
This fundamental principle is reflected in legal malpractice cases. Prior to today’s majority opinion, a lawyer was “not liable for being in error as to a question of law on which reasonable doubt may be entertained by well-informed lawyers. [Citations.]” (Lucas v. Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 591 [15 Cal.Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d 685].) The rule has been variously stated: “ ‘It has frequently been held that a lawyer is not liable for lack of knowledge as to the true state of the law where a doubtful or debatable point is involved.’ ” (Sprague v. Morgan (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 519, 523 [8 Cal.Rptr. 347].) Or, a lawyer “ ‘is not holden for errors in judgment nor in cases where well-informed attorneys entertain different views concerning a proposition of law which has not been settled.’ ” (Floro v. Lawton (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 657, 673 [10 Cal.Rptr. 98], quoting from 69 N.J.L.J. 265.) It should be noted the foregoing statements go beyond lawyer negligence, going to the ultimate question of liability—he shall not be “liable” or “holden” for the errors.
The advice or services performed by the lawyer may be rendered erroneous by subsequent decisions, but if his contemporaries could reasonably have been expected to have performed in the same manner, it is illogical to assume the client would have gained more by having chosen another lawyer. The point is illustrated by the reasoning in Lucas v. Hamm, supra, 56 Cal.2d 583, 593, involving a lawyer who prepared a will violating the rule against perpetuities. The court compared his position with that of a nonnegligent lawyer, stating there was no liability because “an attorney of ordinary skill acting under the same circumstances might well have ‘fallen into the net which the Rule spreads for the unwaiy’ and failed to recognize the danger.”
*367When we consider the law existing in 1967 and the circumstances of the parties, it cannot be concluded on the record before us that it was probable another lawyer would have obtained pension rights for plaintiff in addition to the award obtained for her by defendant.
As the majority opinion points out, when defendant was employed to procure the divorce in 1967, the law was clear that, other than military retirement payments, pension payments constituted community property. (E.g., Benson v. City of Los Angeles (1963) 60 Cal.2d 355, 359 [33 Cal.Rptr. 257, 384 P.2d 649]; 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (7th ed. 1960) pp. 2733-2734.) However, no reported California case prior to 1967 stated that a court was empowered to award an employee’s future pension benefits to his spouse in a divorce action. To the contrary, there were strong indications from statutory and case authorities that such an award could not be obtained. Further, in every reported case where a spouse sought award of the employee’s pension, that spouse lost.1
Let us examine the hurdles faced by a 1967 lawyer seeking the pensions now claimed by plaintiff.2
Interest is Mere Expectancy
The first hurdle for a spouse seeking to recover an employee’s pension in 1967 was the doctrine enunciated in Williamson v. Williamson (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 8, 11 [21 Cal.Rptr. 164], that in a divorce action pensions could be taken into account only to the extent that the employee had received benefits or was certain to receive benefits. The court stated: “The principle established by these cases [French v. French (1941) 17 Cal.2d 775 (112 P.2d 235, 134 A.L.R. 366); Cheney v. City & County of *368San Francisco (1936) 7 Cal.2d 565 (61 P.2d 754); Crossan v. Crossan, supra, 35 Cal.App.2d 39] is that pensions become community property, subject to division in a divorce, when and to the extent that the party is certain to receive some payment or recovery of funds. To the extent that payment is, at the time of the divorce, subject to conditions which may or may not occur, the pension is an expectancy, not subject to division as community property.” (Italics added.) In earlier discussion, the court quoted language in Cheney v. City & County of San Francisco, supra, 1 Cal.2d 565, referring to the contingent event of death. (203 Cal.App.2d at p. 10.) Reading the two statements together, it appears the divorce court could not award future pension payments if they were conditioned on the employee’s survival. In the instant case, such a fule would mean the divorce court could have awarded only an amount equal to the first two state pension payments received before the divorce decree.3 Future payments were apparently subject to the contingency of survival. The first two payments were approximately $1,300, far less than the $100,000 award.
Vested Rights and Employer’s Interests
The next hurdle facing counsel seeking a share of pension benefits in 1967 was authority indicating a spouse could not have a vested right in an employee’s pension because it would interfere with'the employer’s interests in two respects. In Benson v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal.2d 355, 361-362, it was stated that the public policy permitting a governmental body to make reasonable modifications and changes to a retirement system “would be defeated by the vesting of rights in someone other than the employee.” The court also stated: “No reason is suggested why we should depart from the foregoing decisions to the effect that a wife of a public employee acquires no vested interest in a pension until it becomes payable to her. On the other hand, to vest such an interest prior thereto ‘would remove a considerable amount of the flexibility necessary for operation of pension systems, because it would mean that provisions benefiting any third person would be frozen into the law with respect to all employees then in service and that these interests could not be removed regardless of the consent of the employee and regardless of whether the employee was given other pension benefits which might be of greater value to him than the one sought to be eliminated.’ (Packer v. Board of Retirement, supra, 35 Cal.2d 212, 217 [217 P.2d 660].)”
*369The second reason in Benson for denying the spouse a vested right was that it would defeat the employer’s purpose in providing a pension, namely, inducing competent persons to enter and remain in public service. (60 Cal.2d at p. 361.)
In Benson the court concluded: “The vested interest which the wife may protect by her collateral control thus precludes an involuntary deprivation thereof in the case of the community interest in insurance on the husband’s life. But the acquisition by a wife of a vested interest in her husband’s public employment contract might defeat the public purpose in providing a retirement plan for public employees. The distinction lies in the nature of the control which the law permits the husband and wife to independently, lawfully exercise regardless of the community nature of the pension right, and for policy reasons it is deemed necessary that the husband-employee alone exercise control unhampered by vested interests in any third party, including his community partner.” (Italics added; 60 Cal.2d at p. 363.)
Exemption Statutes
In 1967 there were numerous statutes exempting pensions from court process and prohibiting their assignment. A partial listing including nine such statutes is contained in Ogle v. Heim (1968) 69 Cal.2d 7, 9, footnote 1 [69 Cal.Rptr. 579, 442 P.2d 659]. In Ogle, and the companion case of Miller v. Superior Court (1968) 69 Cal.2d 14, 16 [69 Cal.Rptr. 583, 442 P.2d 663], this court unanimously held that the exemption statutes were applicable to claims for child support and alimony, and refused to create a family obligation exception. (See also, Thomas v. Thomas (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 771, 780-785 [13 Cal.Rptr. 872].) When in 1970 it was held that the exemption statutes would not preclude the divorce court awarding employee pension rights to a spouse, this court—although discussing the question for four pages—was unable to cite any California authority in favor of its position. (Phillipson v. Board of Administration, 3 Cal.3d 32, 43-47 [89 Cal.Rptr. 61, 473 P.2d 765].) It must be concluded that in 1967 the existing statutory and case law indicated that exemption statutes would preclude divorce court award of pension payments.
Alimony Adjustments in Lieu of Pension Awards
Two cases suggested that alimony award and modification, rather than a community property division, was the appropriate method to remedy imbalances arising from the husband’s receipt of pension benefits. *370(Kinsey v. Kinsey (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 219, 222 [41 Cal.Rptr. 802]; Williamson v. Williamson, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 8, 12.) Further, because both cases had refused to award any part of an employee’s pension to his spouse, the implication existed that award and modification of alimony was the sole method available to the divorce court.
Federal Law
The majority concedes that in 1967 there was substantial doubt whether federal military pensions constituted community property, awardable in a divorce action.
Aside from the questions discussed above, the principal argument that military pensions were not community property was based on the cases relating to National Service Life Insurance benefits. Wissner v. Wissner (1949) 89 Cal.App.2d 759, 764-771 [201 P.2d 837], had held that where the premiums were paid by community funds, the insurance proceeds became community property, and the widow would be entitled to half the benefits. (Petition for hearing denied with Schauer, J., voting for a hearing.) The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that because federal statute specified the insured could designate and change the beneficiary, an award of a share of the policy proceeds to the widow, when another was designated as beneficiary, would frustrate the intention of Congress. (Wissner v. Wissner (1950) 338 U.S. 655, 658 et seq. [94 L.Ed. 424, 428, 70 S.Ct. 398]; see Estate of Allie (1958) 50 Cal.2d 794, 798 et seq. [329 P.2d 903].)
The principle enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Wissner of giving effect to the statutory provision governing the benefit at the expense of the community property system was applied under California law in Benson v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal.2d 355. This court held that the widow’s benefit under a Los Angeles Charter provision, concededly community property of a first marriage, was payable in its entirety to the widowed second wife to the exclusion of the first wife.
In the light of Wissner and Benson, there existed strong reason to believe statutory provisions for payment to the retiree would be interpreted literally to effectuate congressional and legislative intent, thereby excluding community property claims. Additional legal problems inherent in an award of a military pension to a spouse, typical of those faced by counsel in 1967, are discussed in In re Marriage of Fithian (1974) 10 Cal.3d 592, 597-604 [111 Cal.Rptr. 369, 517 P.2d 449].
*371Although conceding this troubling federal question applied to the federal pension, the majority incorrectly implies the Wissner rule could not apply to the state pension. The majority opinion fails to recognize that the husband retired under section 228 of the Military and Veterans Code which is in accordance with “federal law, statutes, rules and regulations which ... govern the retirement of commissioned officers and warrant officers of the reserve components of the Army of the United States on extended active duty; . . .” (Mil. & Vet. Code, § 228, see also §§ 100-104.) Certainly well informed counsel in 1967 could reasonably have concluded that by appropriating federal law, the Legislature intended it determinative of the character of the pensions.
Victory?
Assuming defendant fully researched the question whether the pensions could be obtained and further assuming his analysis of the authorities led him to forecast this court’s decisions in Phillipson v. Board of Administration, supra, 3 Cal.3d 32, Waite v. Waite (1972) 6 Cal.3d 461 [99 Cal.Rptr. 325, 492 P.2d 13], and In re Marriage of Fithian, supra, 10 Cal.3d 592, it does not follow that he should have pursued an award of the pensions. Although defendant by litigating the awardability of pensions would perhaps have performed a valuable service to the State of California by attempting to settle the law, the lawyer’s first duty is to his client’s best interest—not to the resolution of uncertain legal questions.
Considering the circumstances of this case, including the alimony obtained, expensive litigation by counsel to recover pensions would have gained the client little—if anything—above that obtained in the uncontested action. And, in view of the uncertainty in the law and the risk that the litigation might result in a net loss, pursuit of the pensions would have been an unrealistic alternative. After his retirement, the husband worked as an automobile salesman receiving commissions of approxima-. tely $300 per month. Plaintiff had been earning the same amount shortly before. Plaintiff informed defendant that her husband received $645 monthly pension from the National Guard. Under the divorce decree, plaintiff obtained substantially all of the community property for herself and her son, and was awarded $300 per month alimony and $100 per month child support for her son who was then 18. It is apparent that plaintiff would receive more than one-half of the expected joint incomes of the spouses from the pension payment and salaries.
*372Setting aside alimony awards because of error in the division of community property, this court has recognized the direct relationship between the two awards. (See v. See (1966) 64 Cal.2d 778, 786 [51 Cal.Rptr. 888, 415 P.2d 776]; French v. French, supra, 17 Cal.2d 775, 778; cf. In re Marriage of Wilson (1974) 10 Cal.3d 851, 856 [112 Cal.Rptr. 405, 519 P.2d 165].) The relationship is emphasized in Kinsey v. Kinsey, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d 219, 222, in the pension context: “Manifestly, it would be grossly inequitable to permit plaintiff to retain the benefits of the property settlement and the alimony payments as provided by the terms of the interlocutory judgment entered after the default hearing that resulted from the stipulation of the parties, and also now to permit her to ‘modify’ this agreement in such fashion as to entitle her as a matter of right to one-half of defendant’s future income in the event of his retirement. Plaintiff’s present alimony award is subject to future modification and is ample protection for her future right to share in any income her husband may receive by reason of his pension payments.”
Because of the relationship between community property and alimony awards, it was to be anticipated that had defendant succeeded through litigation in establishing a right to assignment of the pensions, the alimony award would have been greatly reduced or eliminated altogether and the award of the remaining community property possibly altered. Although an award of part of the pension would no doubt have been more valuable than an alimony award of equal amount, the benefit pales in significance when, viewed in light of the uncertainty of the law and the large expense required to establish the right to assignment. Further, litigation would have created the risk that a court might conclude not only that pensions did not constitute awardable community property but also, based on the relative earning abilities of the spouses, alimony should be less than $300.
Conclusion
Given the uncertain status of the law, the circumstances of the parties, and the close relationship between property division and alimony payment, an ethical, diligent and careful lawyer would have avoided litigation over pension rights and instead would have sought a compensating alimony award for any inequity, as expressly suggested by Kinsey v. Kinsey, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d 219, 222, and Williamson v. Williamson, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 8, 12.4 So far as appears, defendant secured such compensating award.
*373Accordingly, even assuming that defendant was negligent in failing to research the pension questions, the record does not furnish a balance of probabilities that his negligence—rather than the uncertain status of the law and the availability of uncontested alimony—caused plaintiff to lose a $100,000 pension award.
I would adhere to the rule of Lucas v. Hamm, supra, 56 Cal.2d 583, 591, that an attorney is not liable for errors on issues “on which reasonable doubt may be entertained by well-informed lawyers.” As shown above, such an issue was presented Attorney Lewis in 1967 concerning recoveiy of unpaid pension benefits in a divorce action. Further, the law applicable to federal pension benefits also presented such an issue, applicable not only to the federal pension but also to the state pension by section 228 of the Military and Veterans Code.5
The majority limits Lucas to “esoteric” cases. {Ante, p. 359.) Even assuming Lucas to be so limited, the hurdles discussed above certainly make the instant case as “esoteric” as Lucas. As pointed out by Professor Leach in his classic 1938 article, Perpetuities in a Nutshell, 51 Harvard Law Review 638, 669-670, violation of the rule against perpetuities—the claimed malpractice in Lucas—may be avoided by use of a simple standard clause placed in every will. The 22 pages of legal discussion since 1967 by this court establishing awardability of pensions generally, of statutory pensions, and of military pensions {Phillipson v. Board of Administration, supra, 3 Cal.3d 32, 39-50; Waite v. Waite, supra, 6 Cal.3d 461, 469-472; In re Marriage of Fithian, supra, 10 Cal.3d 592, 596-604) attest to the complexity of the pension issues.
I would reverse the judgment.
McComb, J., concurred.

Crossan v. Crossan (1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 39 [94 P.2d 609], did not involve an award of the employee’s pension payments or benefits. In Crossan the employee’s contributions to the pension fund were subject to withdrawal if his employment was terminated. The court held the divorce court could take into account the employee’s interest in the fund and award his spouse more than one-half of the remaining community property to compensate for the contributions. There is no language in Crossan suggesting that an employee’s pension benefits could be awarded to the spouse.
Crossan is not helpful to plaintiff because the husband’s contributions for retirement had been refunded several years prior to the divorce. Moreover, even if the contributions had not been previously withdrawn, Crossan would not have aided her significantly in an attempt to recover additional property because plaintiff received substantially all of the community property other than the pensions.

In doing so, we must assume that any claim by plaintiff would have been opposed by competent counsel. To assume otherwise in a malpractice action would place a burden on the lawyer to have made claims of such doubtful merit that the only hope of success would have been lack of opposition. Certainly, we should not encourage lawyers to make such claims, much less impose a duty to engage in the questionable practice.

The statements relied upon by the majority (ante, pp. 356-357) from Benson v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal.2d 355, 359 and French v. French, supra, 17 Cal.2d 775, 778, are consistent with the suggested interpretation of Williamson. I assume that the funds had not been spent.

The possibility of effectively dealing with the pension in this manner was apparently unavailable to counsel in Phillipson v. Board of Administration, supra, 3 Cal.3d 32, the *373first case to recognize assignability of pensions. There the employee had fled the jurisdiction apparently taking all of the community property funds other than his contributions to the pension fund. (3 Cal.3d at p. 38, fn. 2.)

Careful counsel confronted with a pension question would customarily start their research with the statutory basis, if any, of the pension. Certainly all careful counsel would eventually look for the statutory basis. It is regrettable that, in a case upholding an attorney malpractice judgment on a theory of failure to research; the majority fails to even mention the statute establishing one of the pensions and containing provisions contrary to part of the majority’s analysis.