Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger, Inc. and D. Thomas Woodruff sued for legal malpractice alleging more than $1 million damages. Legal malpractice case brought by Wei-Jen (Harrison) Luan against D. Thomas Woodruff and Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger, Inc."Attorney Woodruff's breaches of duty, as alleged above, were a proximate and legal cause of substantial damage, loss and injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff's damages include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: the purchaser sued Wei-Jen for specific performance and damages, claiming in excess of $1 million in losses. Wei-Jen is threatened with suit from the brokers for commissions in excess of $100,000 that would have been paid had the sale and exchange been consummated. Wei-Jen has had to incur substantial attorney's fees and costs responding to such specific performance suit. Alan Harrison initiated a proceeding in Probate Court seeking to remove and surcharge Wei-Jen as co-trustee of HCT. Wei-Jen has had to incur substantial attorney's fees and costs responding to such 'trustee removal and surcharge' proceeding. As a result of the defendants' delay and lack of success in obtaining an order that Alan complete the distribution and execute such documents as were reasonably necessary, Wei-Jen also was compelled to forgo other valuable investment opportunities. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorney's fees, expert fees and costs, litigating the underlying lawsuit and related issues, which fees and costs would not have been necessary if defendants had acted competently and properly to protect plaintiff in her contracts to sell and exchange property in undertaking to timely effectuate and consummate the property division and distribution." All partners at Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger, Inc., are members of the controversial Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, and are or have been officers of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee. All partners also hold the Office of Temporary Judge in Sacramento Superior Court.The Sacramento County Superior Court temporary judge program is controversial. Court reform advocates contend that judge pro tem attorneys receive preferential treatment from judges in exchange for operating the court settlement conference program: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/temporary-judges.html. Sacramento Family Court News articles about Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger:http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/WOODRUFF%20O%27HAIR%20POSNER%20and%20SALINGERAttorney Paula Salinger has been caught filing counterfeit documents and engaging in other illegal or unethical conduct: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PAULA%20SALINGER Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger attorneys have all held offices on the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee. Family court watchdogs assert the committee acts as a shadow government controlling court operations: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FLECFor news and information about Sacramento Family Court, visit Sacramento Family Court News at http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/
Citation preview
F .ED ENuORSED
1 MICHAEL L. BOU (SBN 087937) LAW OFFICE OF !viCHAEL L. BOLl
2 1815 Clement Avenue, Buildmg 26 Alameda, CA 94501
3 Telephone: (510) 749-9001 \
Facsimile: (510) 749-9005 4
5
6
7
Attorney for Plaintiff Wei-Jen (Harrison) Luan
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11 WEI-JEN (HARSON) LUAN;
12 Plcrintiffs,
13 v.
14 D. 1HOMAS WOODRUFF, an individual; WOODRUFF, O'HAIR &
15 POSNER, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
16 Defendants.
) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
17 )
04AS02584 Case
COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE
18 1. This is an action for legal malpractice, in which the defendant lawyers'
19 errors caused a dispute about plcrintif' s management and authority to sell or exchange
20 real property, in plaintiff's capacity as a trustee of a family trust (the Harrison
21 Children's Trust) and as the general partner of a limited partnership (Ha.rT..son Family
22 Enterpnses ll), while the defendants represented plcrintif as the respondent in a family
23 law proceeding (In ReMarriage of Hamson, Sacramento Superior Court Case No.
24 99FL07719). That dispute is ongoing and is the subject of a pending legal action (the
25 "underlying lawsuit"). Due to the uncertain application of C.C.P. § 340.6, the statute of
26 limitations for suits against lawyers, plaintif, in an abundance of caution, files this suit COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE PAGEl
1 before the underlying lawsuit has been finally resolved and before the family law
2 proceeding has been finaly resolved. If plaintif's adversaries in the underlying lawsUit
3 and/ or family law proceedmg knew of the pendency of this action, that knowledge
4 could prejudice plaintiff [due to the fact that the defendant lawyers' negligence
5 benefitted the positions now asserted by plaintif's adversaries in the underlying
6 lawsmt and family law proceeding].
7 2 Plain b.££ Wei-Jen (Harrison) Luan is an individual and a resident of
8 Sacramento County, Cahlornia.
9 3. Thomas Woodruff, an indiVIdual, is an attorney licensed to practice law m
10 California and, on information and belle£, a resident of Sacramento County, Califorrua.
11 4. On information and belief, Woodruf, O'Hair & Posner, Inc., is a
12 profession?t�law corporation with its principal place of business located in Sacramento,
13 California.
14 5. During al times relevant to this complaint, attorney Woodruf acted m the
15 course and scope of his employment as a principal of the Woodruff, O'Hair & Posner
16 law firm.
17 6. The defendant law firm represented to plaintif that Woodruf was a
18 specialist in advising clients on family law and related estate planning matters, and in
19 representing family law litigants in the disposition and division of property.
20 7. Plaintif is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants
21 named herein as defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive. On information and belief,
22 each of the defendants named herein as a Doe defendant is or was legally responsible
23 for the acts or omissions alleged herein, and for the damages resulting therefrom.
24 Plaintif wil amend her complaint to state the true names and capacities of said Doe
25 defendants when the names and capacities are ascertained.
26 8. Defendants are attorneys who specialize in family law and marital
COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE PAGE2
1 property divisions and estate planning. In or about August 2001, defendants undertook
2 to advise plainllff Wer-Jen Harrison and to represent Wer-Jen, as the Respondent m a
3 marital dissolution initiated by Wei-Jen's former husband, Alan Harrison, and in Wei-
4 J en's capacity as co-trustee of HCT and as the general partner in HFE II.
5 9. Defendants became familiar with the marital property and marital estate.
6 Defendants knew that Wer-Jen and Alan HarriSon were co-trustees of the Harson
7 Children's Trust ("HCT"), that Lynn and Kim Harison were the adult daughters of
8 Wei-Jen and Alan Harrison and were beneficiaries of the HCT. Defendants knew that
9 the 60% community property interest in a family partnership, Harrison Family
10 Enterprises ("HFE"), in which HCT also held a 40% partnership interest, was the subject
11 of a November 2000 stipulation in the family law proceeding. Wei-Jen, at that time
12 represented by prior counsel Joe Winn, and Alan, represented by his own attomey, had
13 entered into a stipulation and partial property division whereby the HFE partnership's
14 assets and liabilities were divided between Alan and Wei-Jen and to be distributed
15 effective as of December 31, 2000, such that Alan no longer would be involved in the
16 management of those HFE assets distributed to Wei-Jen or which were owned by HCT,
17 and Wei-Jen no longer would be involved in the management of those HFE assets
18 distributed to Alan. Defendants knew that such November 2000 stipulation was
19 reduced to a formal order and partial judgment filed on or about May 31, 2001, and that
20 both the November 2000 stipulation and May 2001 partial judgment expressly provided
21 that "Wife" (Wei-Jen) would continue to manage the HCT."to the extent permitted by
22 California law."
23 10. Defendants were made aware that Wei-Jen was an active, prudent
24 manager of the HCT trust, that Alan Harrison was not and had been passive as a
25 trustee. Defendants were advised that Wei-Jen and her daughters had agreed to form
26 another family partnership, Harrison Family Enterprises II ("HFE II"), in which Wei-Jen COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE PAGE3
1 was the general partner and HCT was a limited partner. HFE II would assume
2 ownership and management of the assets that were to have been distributed to Wei-Jen
3 by the November 2000 stipulation and May 2001 partial judgment. Defendants
4 negligently failed to advise and assist Wei-Jen as she tried to fulfil her fiduaary
5 obligations as general partner of HFE II and co-trustee of HCT to prudently manage
6 HCT and HFE II partnership assets.
7 11. Defendants knew that Wei-Jen, as general partner of HFE II and co-trustee
8 of HCT, entered into contracts to sell and exchange real property held by the HFE II
9 partnership and HCT trust, including making non-refundable deposits exceedmg $1 .
10 milon dollars. Defendants were aware that those contracts still were nominally subJect
11 to Alan's marital property interests because the drstributions, transfers and waivers of
12 interest called for under the May 2001 partial judgment had not been completed.
13 12. Defendants negligently failed to advise Wei-Jen about the risks of her
14 personal liability exposure to the purchaser, to the beneficiaries, and to Alan Harson,
15 and what Wei-Jen should do to mitigate and avoid those risks. Defendants negligently
16 failed to counsel Wei-Jen that she could expressly condition the contract to sell and
17 exchange property upon the seller's receipt of written consent and approval from the
18 co-trustee (Alan) and beneficiaries (Kim and Lynn) of HCT. Defendants negligently
19 failed to counsel Wei-Jen that she could expressly condition the contract to sell and
20 exchange property upon receipt of a Court Order authorizing and approving such sale
21 by Wei-Jen as co-trustee.
22 13. Attorney Woodruf failed to exercise that degree of care, skil, knowledge,
23 competence and diligence possessed by attorneys who hold themselves out as
24 specializing in family law, marital property divisrons, and estate planng.
25 14. Defendants undertook on Wei-Jen's behalf to obtain express consent and
26 waiver from petitioner (Alan Haron) and Alan's signature on such documents (deeds
COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE PAGE4 i
1 WHEREFORE, Plaintif Wei-J en (Haron) Luan prays for judgment as follows:
2 1. For compensatory damages according to proof;
3 2. For costs of suit;
4 3. For prejudgment interest;
5 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
6
7 Dated: June 23, 2004 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Wei-Jen (Harrison) Luan 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACITCE PAGE7 i
