Christison v. Jones

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• prohibiting assignment due to “the personal nature of the [attorney-client] relationship and the duty imposed upon the attorney, coupled with public policy considerations surrounding that relationship”
• prohibiting assignment due to “the personal nature of the [attorney-client] relationship and the duty imposed upon the attorney, coupled with public policy considerations surrounding that relationship^]”
• examining \the nature of the cause of action . . . and . . . public policy considerations\ as part of its analysis to determine whether certain claims are assignable
• prohibiting the assignment of legal malpractice claims, holding \the decision as to whether a malpractice action should be instituted should be a decision * peculiarly for the client to make\ given, in part, \the personal nature of the duty owed by an attorney to his client\
• legal malpractice claim is not assignable because of the personal nature of the attorney-client relationship
• “[T]he tort of legal malpractice does not fit well into categories previously established for determining assignability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).