Skip to main content
· 6/25/1991

Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield

Citations

  • 231 Cal. App. 3d 692
  • 282 Cal. Rptr. 627
  • 91 Daily Journal DAR 7563
  • 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4940
  • 1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 716

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that an attorney could not be sued for professional negligence by a third-party to whom the attorney owed no duty of care
  • concluding an attorney representing a corporation had no duty to a minority shareholder because the minority shareholder’s interests were at least potentially adverse to the client the attorney was advising
  • applying Doctors’ Co. to reverse a verdict against an attorney where the facts at trial established that the attorney received no more than ordinary fees for legal work performed for the client company
  • strong public policy in maintaining and enforcing fidelity and duty of attorney toward client militates against imposing duty to nonclients
  • “An attorney generally will not be held liable to a third person not in privity of contract with him since he owes no duty to anyone other than his client.”
  • corporate counsel is not the attorney of the corporation’s stockholders merely because his or her actions benefit the stockholders

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Epstein

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.