Court Opinion

ID: 9789267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:32:58.078904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:21.153803
License: Public Domain

BROWN, J., Concurring.
I agree, of course, that the considerations of public policy that have led a majority of the Courts of Appeal to bar indemnification claims in the predecessor/successor cases—avoiding conflicts of interest between attorney and client and protecting the confidentiality of attorney-client communications—do not require the adoption of a blanket rule barring indemnification claims in cocounsel cases. However, out of a concern for judicial economy, I would have preferred to have adopted such a blanket rule.
The case-by-case approach, which we adopt in the majority opinion, may result in more justice for lawyers, but less for the general public, because we will continue to squander scarce judicial resources, at both the trial and appellate level, on these cases. The exorbitant number of published Court of Appeal opinions devoted to them was tallied in a puckish footnote by Justice Miriam A. Vogel. “This opinion, our fourth, means we now have the lead for the number of published opinions on this issue. Division One of the Fourth District is second with three published opinions. Division Three of the Fourth District is third with two published opinions. Divisions Two, Four and Seven of our District, Division Two of the Fourth District, and Divisions Two and Three of the First District, are all tied for fourth place with one opinion each. We like to keep track of these things.” (Shaffery v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 768, 778, fn. 2 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 419].) What will now be the critical issue in cocounsel cases where indemnification is sought for malpractice damages—whether the policy of protecting attorney-client confidentiality would be served by barring indemnification under the circumstances of the particular case—is so fact-bound that minitrials will be required, the losing party will always appeal, and the resulting appellate decisions will provide little guidance. The one certainty is that the adoption of the case-by-case approach will afford other divisions of the Court of Appeal ample opportunity to overtake Division One of the Second District in the race for the number of published opinions devoted to these questions.
Respondents’ petition for a rehearing was denied August 14, 2002.