Role of Corporate attorney Procedural Posture Appellant service provider sought review of a summary judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which ruled that a contract to retain counsel and provide other litigation support services to respondent clients was unlawful and unenforceable. Many people often ask about the role of corporate attorney. Overview The provider, who was not registered as an attorney referral service under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6155, obtained counsel to represent the clients in a commercial dispute. The trial court determined that the referral services were unlawful under § 6155 and that the unlawful provisions of the contract could not be severed. The court held that the contract violated § 6155 because the provider acted for the purpose of referring potential clients to attorneys. Thus, it was unlawful and unenforceable pursuant to Civ. Code, §§ 1607, 1667. Because the contract provided for only a single consideration in exchange for all of the provider's services, including the unlawful attorney referrals, Civ. Code, § 1608, did not permit the illegal portions of the contract to be severed. Evid. Code, § 951, which included “authorized representative” in the definition of “client,” defined the term solely for purposes of the attorney-client privilege and did not address the registration requirements of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6155. Counsel's success or lack thereof in the underlying case was irrelevant. The provider could, however, pursue a claim in quantum meruit as to any services that were lawful. Outcome The court reversed as to the quantum meruit claim and affirmed in all other respects. Procedural Posture Real party in interest insurer challenged a judgment from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (California), which reversed respondent trial court's order sustaining the insurer's demurrer to petitioner insured's claim of unlawful business practices under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq. Overview The insured alleged that the insurer had withheld payment in bad faith for fire damage to her commercial property and that the insurer had engaged in false advertising by promising to provide timely coverage in the event of a compensable loss, while not intending to provide such coverage. The court found the insured's allegations sufficient to support a claim of unlawful business practices. Although no private cause of action was permitted for violations of Ins. Code, § 790.03, subd. (h), claims for relief under the UCL could be based on conduct proscribed by the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), Ins. Code, § 790 et seq., if independently actionable under the common law of insurance bad faith. The court disapproved Textron Financial Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1061, to the extent inconsistent. The remedies provided in the UCL were cumulative to those available to the California Insurance Commissioner under the UIPA. Where no absolute bar to relief existed, an action under the UCL was not prohibited merely because another statute on the subject did not itself provide for the action or prohibit the challenged conduct.
Outcome The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal.