Attorney conduct in California is governed by a complex and evolving set of rules and guidelines emanating from various authorities: the California Rules of Professional Conduct, state and federal case law, local and California ethics opinions, American Bar Association Rules, and the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers. Horvitz & Levy helps its clients navigate these waters, handling high-stakes appeals involving a wide range of professional responsibility issues, including attorney disqualification, claims for legal malpractice, malicious prosecution, and the responsibilities of professionals in other areas (real estate brokers, trustees, etc.).
Contact Lisa Perrochet or Eric Boorstin for more information about our Professional Responsibility and Liability Practice.
Howard v. Clark Construction
Horvitz & Levy persuades the Court of Appeal to dismiss appeal from attorney disqualification ruling.
Read MoreFranklin v. Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital
Horvitz & Levy successfully defends summary judgment for hospital in medical malpractice action on actual and ostensible agency grounds.
Read MoreFlores v. Liu
California Court of Appeal affirms a jury verdict, despite a finding of instructional error, in a professional negligence action against a surgeon
Read MoreHoriike v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company
California Supreme Court holds that buyer in real estate transaction is owed a fiduciary duty by salesperson who represents the seller
Read MoreMcClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP
Court of Appeal affirms ruling in favor of San Francisco law firm in probate dispute
Read MoreLi v. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
California Court of Appeal affirms order denying motion to strike malicious prosecution action against Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.
Read MoreKirk v. First American Title Insurance Company
California Court of Appeal issues opinion approving the use of ethical screens to avoid vicarious law firm disqualification.
Read MorePrediWave Corporation v. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett et al.
California Court of Appeal reverses trial court order that dismissed $2 billion attorney malpractice suit under anti-SLAPP statute.
Read MoreMartin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Appellant's opening brief successfully arguing that opposing counsel should be disqualified for excessively reviewing privileged attorney-client communications and using them during discovery, in violation of the California Supreme Court decision in Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 807.
Read MoreBeal Bank v. Arter & Hadden
California Supreme Court brief arguing against tolling of statute of limitations for attorney malpractice claim.
Read MoreDepartment of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems
California Supreme Court brief arguing for vicarious disqualification of law firm based on conflict of interest involving attorney who was "of counsel" to the firm.
Read More
