Ethics

In Gutierrez v. G&M Oil Co., No. G042041 (2010), a California court recently held that a corporation was not responsible for the negligence of its lawyer (who was in-house counsel and a corporate officer) in failing to file a timely answer.  The case was a class action against the company.  Because of the lawyer?s neglect, the trial court had entered a default judgment against the company.  On appeal, the default judgment was vacated on the ground that the defendant should not be denied its day in court because of its lawyer?s neglect.

Ironically (more accurately, outrageously), the U.S. Supreme Court has held that an indigent criminal defendant, as the ?master,? is responsible for the negligence of his court-appointed lawyer?s (the ?servant?s?) neglect in being 72 hours late in filing a non-substantive notice of appeal.  The result was that the client was executed without receiving his day in court on eleven constitutional issues.

Also, of course, the Supreme Court has been solicitous of huge corporations, like Exxon, with regard to punitive damage awards for their gross negligence.  Big awards against big corporations merits due process concern; the death of an indigent defendant does not.