California appellate court permits narrow exception to rule against non-assignability of legal malpractice claims

Not sure how much this matters in California, but this rule is usually iron-clad.  The first few sentences explain:

There is a general rule in California barring the assignment of a cause of action for legal malpractice. In this case, we recognize a narrow exception to that rule. Specifically, a cause of action for legal malpractice is transferable when (as here): (1) the assignment of the legal malpractice claim is only a small, incidental part of a larger commercial transfer between insurance companies; (2) the larger transfer is of assets, rights, obligations, and liabilities and does not treat the legal malpractice claim as a distinct commodity; (3) the transfer is not to a former adversary; (4) the legal malpractice claim arose under circumstances where the original client insurance company retained the attorney to represent and defend an insured; and (5) the communications between the attorney and the original client insurance company were conducted via a third party claims administrator. 

White Mountains Reinsurance Co. of Am. v. Borton Petrini, LLP, C071365, 2013 WL 6181126 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2013)

About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader.

2 thoughts on “California appellate court permits narrow exception to rule against non-assignability of legal malpractice claims

  1. 1

    Got me thinking. When a president screws things up, things that are entirely under his control and not some act of god or force majeure, do we as the American people have a cause of action for presidential malpractice?

Comments are closed.