California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Musser v. Provencher, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 214, 90 Cal.App.4th 545 (Cal. App. 2001):
The court also noted that "[t]he threat of an adversarial relationship (and the concomitant conflict between the attorney's duty to the client and his or her self-protective instincts) is a significant factor when considering the applicability of the indemnity prohibition in diverse factual situations, more significant than the chronological relationship of the parties." (Id. at p. 1544, fn. 4, citing Major Clients Agency v. Diemer (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1116 in which the court held the same public policy considerations present in the subsequent attorney malpractice cases were applicable to the concurrent representation of a client by an agent and an attorney and barred the agent's action against the client's attorney for negligence because the agent "was a potential adverse party on the issue of commission obligations by [the] client to [the agent]." (Id. at pp. 1132-1133.).)
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.