attorneys

Procedural Posture

Appellant successor representative sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which granted respondent attorneys' motion for judgment on the pleadings in a legal malpractice action.

Overview

A previous personal representative of an Oregon estate had retained the attorneys in an unsuccessful lawsuit against the decedent's California business partner. The successorattorneys did not obtain ancillary appointment by a California court before he brought suit against the attorneys. The court held that the successor representative lacked capacity to sue in California because Code Civ. Proc., § 1913, subd. (b), made clear that his authority did not extend beyond the jurisdiction of Oregon as the government under which he was invested with authority. Leave to amend should have been granted because it was possible that the successor representative might commence an ancillary administration proceeding under Prob. Code, § 12510, to pursue the cause of action, which was property of the decedent under Civ. Code, § 953. Although privity was lacking, Prob. Code, §§ 8524, subd. (c), 9820, subd. (a), allowed the successor representative to bring suit against his predecessor's attorneys. There was no conflict of laws or choice of law problem because Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 114.305(19), 113.215(4) also gave a successor representative the power to sue for legal malpractice.

Outcome

The court reversed and remanded with directions to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend.