During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Legal Malpractice

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Genisman v. Hopkins & Carley

by Jan T. Chilton |

For limitations purposes, the client discovered malpractice claim against a lawyer who structured a transaction when the other party to the transaction threatened to sue client based on the transaction’s structure. Read More

Broadway Victoria, LLC v. Norminton, Wiita & Fuster

When the basis for a claim of breach of fiduciary duty arises from the same facts and seeks the same relief as a plaintiff’s attorney negligence claim for malpractice, the claim for breach of fiduciary duty is duplicative and should be dismissed.  Read More

Yale v. Bowne

Trial court did not err by giving jury instructions on comparative negligence in legal malpractice claim brought against plaintiff’s former lawyer for drafting a trust instrument for the plaintiff that did not retain the character of her separate property, since plaintiff had herself read and understood relevant portions of the trust before signing it.  Read More

Flake v. Neumiller & Beardslee

One-year statute of limitations on legal malpractice claim started running when defendant law firm filed a motion to withdraw from representing plaintiff—not when the court later granted that motion.  Read More

Jones v. Whisenand

A convicted criminal defendant need not demonstrate actual innocence in order to sue his attorney for malpractice in connection with civil commitment proceedings under the Sexually Violent Predator Act.  Read More

Foxen v. Carpenter

Plaintiff's suit against her former attorney was barred by the one-year statute of limitations on legal malpractice because, even though plaintiff sought to allege claims for breach of contract and the like, ultimately her claims depended upon allegations that the attorney had not performed his professional duties in the proper manner.  Read More

GoTek Energy, Inc. v. SoCal IP Law Group, LLP

Legal malpractice claim filed more than a year after client’s acceptance of attorney’s withdrawal was properly dismissed as time-barred, and retainer agreement attorney fee clause was broad enough to cover a malpractice claim whether sounding in tort or contract.  Read More