In Re Easterbrook

California Court of Appeal Mar 8, 1988 No. A041530Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the client's malpractice complaint failed to state a cause of action because it alleged only speculative harm, and that the trial court's contempt order against the attorney was invalid because it was not timely reduced to writing.

Issues

Whether a criminal defendant's malpractice complaint against appointed counsel states a cause of action when it alleges only speculative harm.
Whether the trial court's summary contempt order against the attorney was procedurally valid.

Disposition. Contempt order vacated and set aside.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the civil complaint fails to state a cause of action for legal malpractice and order it stricken”

“We find the order untimely and order it set aside.”

“Respondent court is directed to vacate its contempt order and is forever restrained from enforcing the order and jail term imposed thereon.”

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioner, Alex Easterbrook, seeks by way of habeas corpus to set aside respondent court’s order finding petitioner in contempt and sentencing him to five days in jail.

Petitioner is the appointed counsel for Finas Winston Sturns, Jr., a criminal defendant whose case is currently being tried in San Mateo County Superior Court. On February 29, 1988, Sturns made a

Marsden

motion seeking to obtain new counsel, which respondent court denied.

Sturns also made a

Faretta

motion to represent himself, which he later withdrew.

[1543]

On February 29, 1988, Stums filed a civil complaint for malpractice against petitioner in San Mateo County Superior Court. The complaint alleges that petitioner failed to seek writ relief in this court after the denial of Sturns’s Penal Code section 995 motion; failed to file various pretrial motions—including motions to suppress evidence, to interview prosecution witnesses, to allow access to the law library, to obtain cocounsel status, to declare a conflict between Sturns and the San Mateo County Private Public Defenders Program; and took a position antagonistic to petitioner’s defense. The complaint seeks relief in the sum of $500,000 in damages.

On March 1, 1988, petitioner informed respondent court that Sturns was suing him for malpractice and made a motion to withdraw. A hearing was held outside the presence of the jury and Stums stated that he wanted another attorney to represent him. Respondent court noted that “this has occurred in more than one case in this court, and it’s a delaying tactic that’s being used.” The court then denied petitioner’s motion to be relieved and instructed him to proceed with the criminal trial which was within 15 minutes of the end of testimony. Petitioner refused and was held in contempt and ordered to serve five days in jail. Respondent court stayed trial in the criminal action until March 14, 1988. This petition followed. We stayed the contempt order, requested opposition, and notified the parties that we might issue a peremptory writ in the first instance.

In Re Easterbrook

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief