Portman v. George McDonald Law Corp.

Opinion

ROTH, P. J.

In an earlier but related action to that which is the subject of this appeal, respondents were attorneys of record for an insurance corporation which suffered a money judgment against it in appellants’ favor for some $12,000. When the corporation appealed in that matter, respondents sought to avoid the filing of an undertaking to stay enforcement on behalf of their clients (Code Civ. Proc., § 917.1) and in that connection advised appellants’ counsel both orally and by letter that the corporation was “financially as sound as a dollar.” After that advice, which was accepted by its recipients, proved inaccurate and it was discovered the company was in fact insolvent at the time the assurance was rendered and was later placed in receivership, appellants brought the present suit based on negligent misrepresentation. Respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings therein was granted

[990]

December 13, 1978, concededly on the basis of the privilege accorded by Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2.

1

This appeal followed. Though expressed in somewhat differing manners by the parties, the only issue before us is whether as a matter of law the trial court’s determination was correct. We hold that it was.

The policy considerations which provide support for the privilege referred to (see fn. 1) and which were first expressed in

Albertson

v.

Raboff

(1956) 46 Cal.2d 375, 382 [295 P.2d 405], and later summarized in

Kachig

v.

Boothe

(1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626 [99 Cal.Rptr. 393], namely that: “Underlying the recognition of this privilege is the important public policy of affording the utmost freedom of access to the courts. (See

Albertson