What constitutes professional negligence in the context of the duty of an attorney to prevent the seizure and recordation of a document held in escrow?

The issue of what constitutes professional negligence was considered in the context of the duty of attorneys in Wasmann v. Seidenberg (1988) 202 [18 Cal.App.4th 1716] Cal.App.3d 752, 248 Cal.Rptr. 744. In that case, the attorney for the wife in a marriage dissolution action had received a deed from the husband's attorney conveying certain real property to the wife, but with instructions not to record it until certain payments had been arranged. The wife allegedly had obtained the deed and recorded it without satisfying the preconditions. The appellate court concluded these allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action against the lawyer for general negligence, but not for professional negligence.

The negligence allegations, the court said, "are not the stuff of which legal malpractice claims are made. An attorney's failure to prevent a client's unauthorized seizure and recordation of a document held in escrow is not negligent lawyering: 'The situation required no professional "skill, prudence and diligence." It simply called for the exercise of ordinary care.' (Gopaul v. Herrick Memorial Hosp. (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1007 [113 Cal.Rptr. 811]....)" (202 Cal.App.3d at p. 757, 248 Cal.Rptr. 744.)