Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> California Appellate Report

Federal Judiciary

: California Appellate Report

Styles v. Mumbert (Cal. Ct. App. - July 15, 2008)

By Shaun Martin

It's bad enough to be defending a legal malpractice claim. It's worse when your alleged malpractice allegedly resulted in a $730,466 default judgment being entered against your client. Especially when you've "admitted on the record that [you] did not have time to devote to the case."

You've apparently tried a creative way, however, to get out of the resulting problem -- namely, by purchasing the claim of the plaintiff and then attempting to substitute yourself as the respondent in the subsequent appeal from the default judgment against your client (the one suing you for malpractice). There's only one problem. You have now arguably dug yourself in deeper. And have a published opinion by the Court of Appeal that not only mentions you by name, but that also holds that your efforts "violate[] multiple rules of Professional Conduct as well as the Business and Professions Code."

Such is the life of California attorney Anthony Pagkas. Who didn't have a very good day today.

Full post as published by California Appellate Report on July 15, 2008 (boomark / email).