FRESNO, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – A lawyer will stay on the hook for a $300,000 malpractice verdict after walking out on a client who was unhappy with the way settlement talks in a divorce were going.
The California Fifth Appellate District affirmed a Stanislaus County judgment against the Law Office of Leslie F. Jensen, who told her client “I’m done” shortly before the divorce trial was to begin.
Jensen wanted Krista Masellis to accept an $800,000 offer, even though valuations placed Krista’s share at $1.5 million or more. Krista had urged Jensen to depose her soon-to-be-ex-husband because she thought he might be hiding assets, but Jensen never did.
When Jensen told Masellis she wouldn’t ask for more than $800,000, even though Masellis wanted much more, Masellis told her she didn’t have the client’s best interest in mind.
Jensen supposedly said “That’s it. I’m done” and left the Friday negotiations. Masellis was then on her own for the Monday trial and accepted a $1.2 million offer from her ex-husband.
Masellis performed a “settle-and-sue” maneuver, accepting the offer then suing the attorney for the difference of what she was seeking.
One report at the legal malpractice trial had Masellis’ share at $1.62 million and another had it at $1.49 million. A jury found Jensen’s mishandling of settlement negotiations cost Masellis $300,000.
On appeal, Jensen argued the standard for evidence in a “settle and sue” should be higher, but the appeals court rejected that.
“(W)e conclude the applicable standard of proof for the elements of causation and damages in a ‘settle and sue’ legal malpractice action is the preponderance of the evidence standard…” Justice Donald Franson wrote.
“Accordingly, we reject (Jensen’s) argument that a higher burden of proof in ‘settle and sue’ legal malpractice cases is an uncontroverted legal principle that must be applied in this case.”