California Court of Appeal

Judgment against defendants, attorney and law firm acting as escrow holder for stock transaction, for breach of duty and conversion of stock, is affirmed over claims that: 1) closing escrow with the expectation that the seller would sue was the "functional equivalent" of filing an interpleader action; and 2) the court erred in precluding evidence of privileged communications with their clients and in permitting jury instructions that identified the seller as a party to whom the attorney owed a duty as an escrow holder. However, where trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff a partial retrial on punitive damages as to the attorney, the order is reversed.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/19/2006
• Published 06/19/2006

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• McDermott Will & Emery, Elliot Silverman and Michael R. O'Neill, Irvine, for Plaintiff and Appellant., Reed Smith, James C. Martin and Denise M. Howell, Los Angeles, for the Los Angeles County Bar Association as Amicus Curiae.


• For Appellees:
  
• Nemecek & Cole, Frank W. Nemecek, Susan S. Baker, Sherman Oaks;  Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robin Meadow and Cynthia E. Tobisman, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Appellants.