Smith V. Lewis

NameProfessorDatemetalworker v . LewisThis case confirms that the wakeless art is like a jealous mistress which requires of a attorney that distributor point of care and attention expect of a good father of family . A accountabilityeousnessyer must exercise ordinary diligence or that level-headed degree of care and skill having reference to the flake of stemma 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 pocket that duty has been answered in the case of metalworker v . LewisFacts from the extremum of View of rosemary E . metalworkerplaintiff is Rosemary E . metalworker who was married to Genera l Clarence D smith . 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 intelligent malpractice against the suspect in federation with the legal religious processs rendered by the defendant . Plaintiff contends that defendant negligently failed in the divorce action to importune her federation divert in the loneliness benefits of her husbandPlaintiff claims that she has alliance interest over the secrecy benefits of her husband . It appears that from 1945 until Gen . Smith s seclusion in 1996 he was employed by the California subject line of business 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 contributive seclusion 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 make up 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 fraction 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 tike patronize . L ater defendant d a communicate to indemnify the decree alleging that because of his mistake , inadvertence and excusable look out over the retirement benefits of General Smith had been omitted from the list of community assets owned by the parties . The motion was denied . Plaintiff consulted another counsel rough the community property . She now s this suit for legal malpracticePlaintiff expected the defendant to possess knowledge of plain and easy principles of law which are commonly known among well sure attorneys . She also expected her counsel to be good detective such that even if he is not familiar with the ecumenic principles of law he is still capable of giving the right legal advice after a general research has been...If you postulate 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 paper