12/02/2004
Attorney Subject to Legal Malpractice Claim for Breach of the Duty of Loyalty Even if there is No Evidence That Actual Disclosures of Confidential Information Occurred
Benasra v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
Brief Summary
A client is generally required to establish that he or she has been damaged in order to pursue a claim for legal malpractice or breach of fiduciary duty. This case shows that what might be considered “traditional” evidence of damage will not always be required where lawyers are in breach of their fiduciary obligations.
Hinshaws Lawyers for the ProfessionSM Alert can also be viewed at http://www.lawyeringlaw.com