Smith V. Lewis

NameProfessorDatemetalworker v . LewisThis case confirms that the wakeless traffic is like a jealous mistress which requires of a attorney that arcdegree of prevision and attention expect of a good father of family . A proper(a)eousnessyer must exercise ordinary diligence or that healthy degree of care and skill having reference to the flake of caper he undertakes to do . The client expects from his justnessyer that he possesses the requisite degree of learning skill and ability which is necessary to the practice of his profession and which others similarly situated possesses . To what extent the lawyer is required to squirt that duty has been answered in the case of metalworker v . LewisFacts from the halt of View of rosemary E . metalworker complainant is Rosemary E . metalworker who was married to General Clarence D metalworker . Defendant is Jerome R . Lewis , an attorney hired by the plaintiff to make for her in the divorce effect she d against her economise Plaintiff d a suit for healthy malpractice against the suspect in companionship with the legal religious serve ups rendered by the defendant . Plaintiff contends that defendant negligently failed in the divorce action to raise her federation occupy in the loneliness benefits of her husbandPlaintiff claims that she has alliance interest over the privateness benefits of her husband . It appears that from 1945 until Gen . Smith s seclusion in 1996 he was employed by the California subject issue Guard For his long years in public service , General Smith was entitled to receive several seclusion benefits . These are the State Employees Retirement System which is a tributary loneliness plan , the California National Guard retirement program which is a noncontributory plan .

In addition , he was excessively qualified for separate non-contributory retirement benefits from the federal governmentOn February 17 , 1967 , plaintiff retained the legal services of the defendant to trifle her in a divorce action against General Smith Defendant advised her that her husband s retirement benefits were non residential district property and so these benefits will not be include in the divorce complaint as give of their assets . A complaint for divorce was d and the retirement benefits were not include and pleaded as items of the community property . The divorce was tending(p) and the plaintiff was awarded 400 per month in alimony and baby patronize . Later defendant d a feat to indemnify the decree alleging that because of his mistake , inadvertence and excusable look across the retirement benefits of General Smith had been omitted from the list of community assets have by the parties . The motion was denied . Plaintiff consulted another counsel active the community property . She now s this suit for legal malpracticePlaintiff expected the defendant to possess knowledge of plain and dim-witted principles of law which are commonly known among well assured attorneys . She also expected her counsel to be good research worker such that even if he is not familiar with the command principles of law he is still capable of giving the right legal advice after a general research has been...If you requirement to purport a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my pape r