Chamberlin v. Hartog, Baer & Hand, APC

Background

Christopher Chamberlin, who was representing himself, sued his former attorneys Hartog, Baer & Hand, APC (HBH), David Baer, John Hartog, and Margaret Hand. The case arose from HBH’s representation of Chamberlin in probate proceedings involving his mother’s estate and his uncle, Michael Levin.

Chamberlin alleged that the defendants failed to disclose a conflict of interest arising from family relationships connecting Hartog’s family to Levin’s family. He claimed that this alleged conflict caused or contributed to errors in the representation. His first amended complaint asserted claims for declaratory judgment that the retainer agreement was void, fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, intentional legal malpractice, and negligent legal malpractice.

The court had previously dismissed most of these claims with leave to amend. It had also dismissed the negligent-malpractice claim against Hand with leave to amend because Chamberlin had not alleged that Hand represented him. The negligent-malpractice claim against HBH, Baer, and Hartog was allowed to proceed.

Ruling on the Alleged Conflict of Interest

The defendants again moved to dismiss the claims based on the alleged conflict. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Because this was a motion to dismiss, the court treated factual allegations as true but did not resolve factual disputes. Fraud-based claims also had to satisfy Rule 9(b), which requires the circumstances of fraud to be stated in detail.

Under California law, Chamberlin’s fraudulent-inducement claim based on concealment required allegations that the defendants concealed a material fact, had a duty to disclose it, intentionally concealed it to defraud him, that he relied on the concealment, and that he suffered damage. Chamberlin relied on a former California professional-conduct rule concerning an attorney’s relationship with a person who would be substantially affected by the representation.

The court concluded that Chamberlin still had not alleged that any defendant had the type of legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with Michael Levin covered by that rule. The court also found that Chamberlin had not plausibly alleged that Hartog or Hand knew of the extended family relationship, or that Baer knew its details or would have considered the relationship relevant. The court held that the alleged several-steps-removed family connection did not, by itself, create a conflict of interest under California law.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement claim. Because Chamberlin had already been given an opportunity to amend and the court found that further amendment would be futile, it dismissed that claim with prejudice.

The court reached the same result for Chamberlin’s claims seeking to void the retainer agreement and alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, and intentional malpractice. Those claims were based on the same alleged conflict, which the court found had not been plausibly alleged. The motion to dismiss those claims with prejudice was granted.

Negligent Malpractice Claim Against Hand

The court separately considered Chamberlin’s negligent-malpractice claim against Hand. Chamberlin alleged that Hand supervised and worked with Julie Woods, who had been assigned to his case, directed Woods’s legal work, and had access to his confidential information.

The court found that Chamberlin still had not alleged that Hand worked on his matter, made a particular error, or caused a particular effect on him. Because he had not cured the defect identified in the earlier order, the court granted the motion to dismiss the negligent-malpractice claim against Hand with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part. All of Chamberlin’s claims were dismissed with prejudice except the negligent-malpractice claim against HBH, Baer, and Hartog. The defendants were ordered to file an answer by September 15, 2020.