Corporate compliance attorney

Plaintiff brought suit against defendant department store and its attorneys, arguing that their detective invaded her privacy when investigating her personal injury case. She appealed the order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) sustaining a demurrer on her claims of intrusion into attorney-client relationship, invasion of privacy, and negligent supervision and entrustment.

Plaintiff, who had filed a personal injury claim against defendant store, brought suit against it and its attorneys after an investigator employed by defendants appeared in her hospital room and used deception to gain a witness's address. The Corporate compliance attorney affirmed the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer on plaintiff's claim that defendants had intruded into her relationship with her attorney, writing that Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct R. 12, governing communications with a represented party, did not subject an attorney to liability for damages. It reversed the trial court's order regarding plaintiff's claims for invasion of privacy and negligent hiring and supervision, finding first that an unreasonably intrusive investigation could give rise to an action for invasion of privacy and that defendants could be held vicariously liable for the intentional torts of the investigator. It concluded that the question of negligence was to be decided based on the evidence, writing that the fact that the investigative agency hired by defendants was licensed did not show as a matter of law that they exercised reasonable care.

The court reversed in part the order sustaining a demurrer, finding that an unreasonably intrusive personal injury investigation by defendant store and its attorneys could invade plaintiff's privacy and that negligence was a question for the fact finder. It affirmed the demurrer as to the intrusion into attorney-client relationship claim, finding that the rule about communications with represented parties did not give rise to such an action.

Appellant former employee sought review of an order from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), that denied his motion, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021.5, for attorney fees incurred in litigating his complaint for breach of contract, invasion of privacy and wrongful termination in violation of public policy against respondent former employer.

Appellant former employee sought review of order that denied his motion, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021.5, for attorney fees incurred in litigating his complaint for breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy against respondent former employer. The court on review held that the record supported the trial court's conclusion that appellant's personal financial stake in the  was not so disproportionate to the cost of litigation that the lawsuit would not have been brought without the additional incentive of an award of attorney fees. The court reasoned that the evidence supported the inference that, at the time important litigation decisions were being made, appellant's expected recovery was always more than enough to warrant incurring the costs of litigation. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant failed to establish that his personal stake in the  was disproportionate to the financial burden of litigation. The order denying attorney fees was affirmed.

The order denying appellant former employee's request for attorney fees was affirmed because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant failed to establish that his personal stake in the  was disproportionate to the financial burden of litigation.