Legal Malpractice Forum
| Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 8 No. 12 Pg. 2409 |
| Pages | 2409 |
| Publication year | 1979 |
1979, December, Pg. 2409. Legal Malpractice Forum
Considerable interest in legal malpractice problems has been evidenced in recent years.(fn1) Most of this interest has centered around the liability of an attorney for negligence in representing his own client. Less attention has been paid to the liability of an attorney to persons that he does not represent but who claim to have been damaged as a result of the attorney's conduct in representing his client. However, this is an area in which attorneys are exposed to claims. Recent cases from the Colorado Court of Appeals are worthy of discussion, as they modify previously existing case law.
The Colorado decision usually cited as involving a claim against an attorney by one other than a client is Weigel v. Hardesty.(fn2) In that case, the plaintiff filed an action for damages against his former wife and her attorney. Plaintiff contended that the attorney became an escrow agent in the handling of certain documents relative to a property settlement agreement. In addition to the allegation of agency, the action against the attorney was founded upon negligence. The trial court ruled against the plaintiff on the issue of agency, finding that the attorney had acted solely as attorney for the plaintiff's wife throughout the entire chain of events.
On appeal, those findings were affirmed, the Court of Appeals holding that the attorney was charged with a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of his client. The pertinent portion of the appellate court's ruling, however, was a statement that when an attorney fulfills his obligation to his client, he is liable for injuries to third parties only when his conduct is fraudulent or malicious.
Weigel is cited in Mallen & Levit, Legal Malpractice,§ 41(1977), where the following comment appears on p. 70:
Thereafter, the authors of that text point out that the liability of an attorney to non-clients has been limited primarily to intentional torts, and whether an attorneyAlthough the attorney is liable for his torts, he is not responsible for every injury to third persons merely because they arose out of his representation. The general rule is that the "ex delicto" liability of the attorney to third persons exists if there is fraud, collusion, or a malicious or tortious act.
A recent Court of Appeals case...
To continue reading
Request your trial