Representing Clients in: San Francisco  Los Angeles  Oakland  San Jose  Sacramento  San Diego  415-296-8880

We are unable to disclose much about this case even though it went to jury trial because the case was settled after the trial (actually for more than the verdict) with the defendant demanding and receiving a full confidentiality agreement.  

The case involved an otherwise good contruction lawyer giving bad advice to his small contractor client about the prospects of winning a construction dispute with a non-paying client of the contractor.  The lawyer did not properly investigate or prepare the case and missed critical issues which placed the contractor at risk for substantial damages.  The mistakes were discovered just days before the case went to trial and required the contractor to pay to his client a large, mid-six figure settlement.  The lawyer had the opportunity to settle the case for the contractor on a "walk-away" basis at the beginning of the case (meaning each side would walk away from their claims), but becaus the case had not been properly investigated, the lawyer advised his contractor client to reject the settlement.  

In addition to the improper investigation and preparation of the case, the lawyer allegedly failed to advise the contractor client about the availability of insurance coverage and told his client "he wasn't covered" for the claims being made.  

At trial, we had to establish that a competent construction attorney, properly investigating the case would have have recognized that the contractor's case was weak and that he was exposed to damages.  Additionally, we presented evidence that whenever a contractor is sued for damages by his client, it is prudent for the attorneys to "tender the claim" to the insurance carrier.  The problem with this case was that the discovery of the contractor's potential mistake was made so late in the litigation process that a tender of the claim to the insurance carrier would have clearly been rejected as too late.