He had monitored relevant pending cases, consulted with other attorneys on relevant cases and followed the commentator’s debate on the subject. Davis 888. The attorney gave advice based on this research, his experience and knowledge and even though a later case would render this advice incorrect, he was not liable for his error. Davis 888. In Smith 359, the attorney relied on one case which he had not read thoroughly. He did not consult “either hornbook or case law.” Smith 360. This is similar to the attorney in Aloy 419. He also relied on an incomplete reading of a single case, although he did read the advance sheets. Aloy 416. In both cases, the court found that these attorneys had not completed sufficient research into the matter for their advice to be based on informed judgment. Aloy 419 Smith …show more content…
The sum total of Barrington’s experience, knowledge and research show he negligently performed his professional duties in this matter. Like the attorneys in Smith and Aloy, he did not know that the law is unsettled. He argued that the law was clear and had been for twenty years even though there are disputes in lower courts and a California Supreme Court case pending. Based on this, he does not meet the knowledge factor of informed judgment. Although Barrington is experienced, this alone is not enough to show he used informed judgment when giving this advice. Barrington practiced law for twenty years. One-third of his work is in the area of probate law. Additionally, he belongs to the Probate Section of the California Bar Association and attends their meetings each year. However, this experience alone is not enough to prevent him being found liable for