Dale Randall Goebel, Plaintiff And Appellant v. James Lauderdale, Defendant And Respondent 214 Cal. App. 3d 1502, 263 Cal. Rptr. 275 (Cal.App.Dist.6 09/29/1989) relates to Appellant Dale Randall Goebel suing James Lauderdale for attorney malpractice. Lauderdale was a practitioner in Monterey County, focusing on bankruptcy.
The trial court granted respondent's motion for nonsuit on the grounds that the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and because appellant did not establish a prima facie case of negligence. A motion for nonsuit is a ruling by the judge in a lawsuit when the plaintiff (the party who filed the suit) does not proceed to trial at the appointed time or has presented all his/her/its evidence and, in the judge's opinion, there is no evidence, which could prove the plaintiff's case. A nonsuit terminates the trial at that point, and results in a dismissal of the plaintiff's case and judgment for the defendant.
On appeal, the Court Of Appeal Of California, Sixth Appellate District ruled the trial court erred in granting Lauderdale's motion for nonsuit on the issue of negligence, and erred in granting the nonsuit based on the running of the statute of limitations.
The client served jail time for diversion of funds after following Lauderdale's legal advice. The appellate court concluded Lauderdale could have prevented his client's injuries simply by checking a statute before giving advice. Lauderdale tried to appeal to the California Supreme Court, but his case was not granted certiorari.
The Goebel case is an example of how important it is to engage an attorney who is specially trained in the law for a client's needs. The California State Bar gives a FAQ on "Hiring A Lawyer" to help consumers find a lawyer to resolve a client's particular needs. Sometimes it may not be that an attorney is not adept at a subject, but accepts too many cases, and finds perfection in rote, but when something complicated comes along, the attorney does not take the time to research the laws, or does not realize the law became outdated by new legislation.
In bankruptcy, it is important to find an attorney who understands fraudulent transfers and preference claims. Without this understanding, transfers may be voidable as fraudulent under federal bankruptcy law and state law. Judge John K. Olson of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida permitted the bankruptcy estates of TOUSA, Inc. and its debtor subsidiaries to avoid and recover more than $1 billion of liens and cash that the debtors had transferred to secured lenders in a transaction entered six months prior to the debtors' Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. v. Citicorp North America, Inc., 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 3311 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2009).
Sometimes get a second opinion on what an attorney advises. Check local courthouses for programs like the ACCESS Self-help Center in San Francisco Superior Court for free legal clinic. Sometimes attorneys bully clients to settle a case by threatening to withdraw leaving the client helpless with no support, going along with whatever the attorney advises. This is not the right approach when the attorney does not have the client's financial and nonmonetary future consequences in mind. A client should be able to trust an attorney to give accurate and complete legal information, and not have to research the law on his/her own.
Bankruptcy is a complicated process, and it is important to discuss concerns with a bankruptcy attorney who has the client's interests as the priority.
