California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Austin v. Superior Court, 72 Cal.App.4th 1126, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 644 (Cal. App. 1999):
However, there are competing policies in the case of a lawyer sued for malpractice. Again, in Copenbarger we noted: "In the case of a lawyer sued for malpractice, however, there are policies which militate against permitting the assertion of indemnity and contribution claims against the successor lawyer. Since the successor lawyer frequently is the very lawyer representing plaintiff in the malpractice action, permitting such a claim to proceed would create conflicts for that lawyer in the malpractice action. The mere ability to pursue such a claim would thus give the lawyer being sued for malpractice a tactical weapon not available to defendants in other tort actions. Other policies militating against permitting such a cross complaint or suit for indemnity or contribution to proceed arise from the difficult problems posed by the lawyer's duty to protect the confidences of the client and arising out of the policies protecting the lawyer's work product. These conflicting policies resulted in a number of conflicting appellate decisions." (Copenbarger v. International Ins. Co., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at pp. 965-966, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 1.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.