Is an attorney's dealings with a client considered to be those of a trustee with his beneficiary?

An attorney's transactions with his client are those of a trustee with his beneficiary, giving rise to certain disputable presumptions: 'All transactions between a trustee and his beneficiary during the existence of the trust, or while the influence acquired by the trustee remains, by which he obtains any advantage from his benficiary, are presumed to be entered into by the latter without sufficient consideration, and under undue influence.' Civ.Code 2235. The advantage which a fiduciary thus gains need not be an unfair advantage: 'When a fiduciary enters into a transaction with a beneficiary whereby the fiduciary's position is improved, or he obtains a favorable opportunity, or where he otherwise gains, benefits, or profits, it may fairly be said that an advantage has been obtained. To declare that the advantage obtained must be shown to be unfair, unjust, or inequitable before the presumptions arise would result in the imposition of a condition which is not required by section 2235.' Bradner v. Vasquez, 43 Cal.2d 147, 152, 272 P.2d 11, 14. A course of dealing with a client that would gain one a prescriptive title to property of the client would certainly be the obtaining of an 'advantage' within the meaning of this definition.

Quite similar to our case at that of Dettamanti v. Lompoc Union School Dist., 143 Cal.App.2d 715, 300 P.2d 78, an action against a school district and the driver of one of its buses for injuries to a student, allegedly caused by the negligence of the driver. It appeared from the complaint that the required verified claims were filed after the expiration of the prescribed ninety-day period. A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained despite allegations that plaintiff's father first consulted a person who was attorney for the district, that this attorney collected damages for plaintiff from the owner of another vehicle involved but failed to inform plaintiff's father that plaintiff had or might possibly have a cause of action against the district and its driver. Later, other counsel were consulted, who advised the bringing of this action.