258 Cal. App. 2d 136 - Lysick v. Walcom’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 179 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 197 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Vahila v. Hall (1997), 6 Cal. 3d 176 - Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 179 state decisions — followed in 17 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Crisci v. Security Insurance · 56 Cal. 2d 583 - Lucas v. Hamm · Comunale v. Traders & General Insurance · Estate of Lances · 155 Cal. App. 2d 679 - Brown v. Guarantee Insurance
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The lawyer's duty to the client includes the obligation to attempt to effectuate reasonable settlement of the action where the general standards of professional care require that the most reasonable manner of disposing of the action is by settlement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Ordinarily, there is no conflict of interest involved in such a situation because the insertion in the policy of a provision requiring the insured to permit the insurance company’s lawyer to defend claims insured against amounts to a consent in advance by the insured to the employment of an attorney by the insurance company to defend such claims. . . . Accordingly, in such cases the attorney represents two clients, the insured and the insurer, and he owes to both a high duty of care imposed by statute . . . and the rules governing professional conduct. . . . Insofar as the insured is concerned the attorney owes him the same obligations of good faith and fidelity as if he had retained the attorney personally. It sometimes happens, while such attorney is representing both the insured and the insurer, that a conflict of interest arises between his two clients. A conflict of interest between his two clients, however, does not necessarily require that the attorney withdraw from the case or that he terminate the relationship of attorney and client with the client whose interests would prevent the attorney from devoting his entire energies in that client’s behalf and to that client’s interests, although he may choose to do so. In California, an attorney may usually, under minimum standards of professional ethics, represent dual interests as long as full consent and full disclosure occur.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“may create a relationship under which the attorney has no duty to the insured in the matter of settlement. In such a situation, ... the settlement decision has no significance between the insured and the attorney who is representing the defense in court. It is essential in such case, however, that the parties clearly understand that the client-attorney relationship does not extend to the matter of settlement, and if circumstances indicate that the insured may be misled, the attorney has the duty to make it clear to the insured that he represents only the [insurance] company with respect to settlement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.