Wanting to maintain complete control over his already troubled divorce proceedings, non-practicing lawyer Curtis Kekoa Jr. insisted on a contract provision with his attorney that would give him last say over decision making. But that move backfired when a trial court said the provision turned his attorney/client relationship into an employee/employer relationship that prevented him from suing for malpractice. A California appeals court has agreed, holding that the "control provision" turned lawyers into "mere puppets."
December 22, 2009 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Wanting to maintain complete control over his already troubled divorce proceedings, Curtis Kekoa Jr. insisted on a contract provision with his lawyer that would give him last say over decision making.
But that move backfired on the non-practicing San Francisco lawyer when a trial court judge said the provision turned his attorney/client relationship into an employee/employer relationship that prevented him from suing for malpractice.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
