Employer’s Lawyer Who Defended Employee At Deposition May Be Liable To The Employee For Malpractice

Corporations may have free speech rights (Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010)) but they can’t talk.  Thus, any deposition testimony must come from the mouths of people who are the agents, employees and directors of the corporation.  These people usually come to the deposition with lawyers.  But whom do these lawyers represent – the corporations, the deponents or both? How this question gets answered can have significant legal ramifications as illustrated by an opinion issued yesterday by the Third District Court of Appeal in Yanez v. Plummer, Cal. App. Case No. C070726 (Nov. 5, 2013).

Yanez involved a malpractice suit against his former employer’s in-house counsel, Plummer.  The employee, Yanez, had written two statements describing a workplace accident.  Later, Yanez was deposed in the injured employee’s lawsuit.  Before entering the deposition, Yanez expressed concern about his job security because he thought his testimony would be unfavorable to his employer.  Plummer responded: “Yanez was a Union Pacific employee and Plummer was his attorney for the deposition; as long as Yanez told the truth in the deposition, Yanez’s job would not be affected”.  Later, during the deposition Plummer highlighted an inconsistency between one of Yanez’ two written statements and his testimony.  After the deposition, Yanez was fired for dishonesty.  He sued for wrongful termination and malpractice.  The trial court granted Plummer summary judgment and Yanez appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed, noting that Yanez had presented evidence that Plummer had not informed him of possible conflicts or obtained his written consent in violation of State Bar Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 3-310(C).  According to the Court of Appeal, breach of  this rule “constitutes evidence of malpractice liability and breach of fiduciary duty but does not, standing alone, prove the malpractice or the fiduciary breach.”  Nonetheless, court found that there was a triable issue of fact that but for Plummer’s alleged malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud Yanez would not have been terminated.  This doesn’t mean that the Court of Appeal found the lawyer guilty of malpractice, but it does mean that the case will have to go to trial.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP on:

Popular Topics
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.