Appeal Court Raps Knuckles of Attorneys
“Sorry’ and “unseemly” examples of the practice of law were condemned by state appellate justices Tuesday in two cases in which the lawyers overshadowed their clients.
Both involved default judgments, or lawsuits that were concluded after one side failed to act quickly enough.
Lawyers for the firm of Cummins & White were criticized and fined $1,200 by 4th Appellate District justices for pushing a case to default before the other side knew what was happening.
Dispute Over Commercial Lease
The firm represented Brea Investment Group in a dispute over a commercial lease with Blaisdell Manufacturing Inc. While both sides were still discussing a resolution of the dispute, the Brea group “suddenly and without warning” obtained a default judgment for $200,000, the justices said.
“The unnecessary and protracted game of ‘hardball’ which (Brea) has pursued to date should have ended long ago,” wrote Justice Thomas F. Crosby Jr. “Such conduct only brings discredit to the entire profession and will not be tolerated by this court.”
Lawyers for Blaisdell persuaded a judge to cancel the default, and Brea appealed in what Crosby called “an astounding display of chutzpah.” Crosby found the appeal frivolous, adding that any reasonable lawyer “not given to slick practices” would agree with him.
“This case represents another sorry example of the type of one-upmanship which does no credit to the legal profession,” according to the opinion.
“I think the appellate court was wrong,” said Rick L. Raynsford, the lawyer for Brea. Raynsford said Blaisdell failed several times to answer the complaint, and he believes that he was justified in seeking the default.
In another Crosby opinion, the court revived the lawsuit of a woman who was suing a former companion for an equal division of property.
The woman had lost the services of her attorney when lawyer Annie R. Parenzan, representing the man, pushed the case to trial. The woman was not present or represented, and a favorable judgment was entered for the man.
The appellate court set aside the judgment.
“The record before us reflects unseemly conduct by an attorney who was fully aware of the opposing party’s difficulties in obtaining a new attorney and her litigation file, yet still took unfair advantage to secure a very favorable judgment for her client,” according to the opinion. “We have condemned precisely this sort of overreaching before, and we do so again.”
