Reynolds v. Schrock, 341 Or. 338, 142 P.3d 1062 (2006)

Caba v. Barker, 341 Or. 534, 145 P.3d 174 (2006)

Two recent Oregon cases discuss the liability of an attorney to third parties.
The first case, Reynolds v. Schrock, involved a suit by plaintiff Reynolds against
defendant Schrock and Schrock’s attorney. The claim against the attorney alleged
that the attorney aided and abetted Schrock’s breach of fiduciary duty to the
plaintiff, and therefore the attorney was jointly liable with Schrock. The attorney
won a motion for summary judgment at the trial court level. The Oregon Court of
Appeals reversed, holding that an attorney could be held liable for harm caused by
the attorney’s client if the attorney knowingly aided or assisted in the client’s actions
causing such harm. The Oregon Supreme Court then reversed that decision, holding
that an attorney acting on behalf of a client and within the scope of the attorneyclient
relationship is not liable for harm caused by the client (in this case, harm that
resulted from a breach of fiduciary duty to a third party).
In Reynolds, the attorney gave legal advice to his client, Schrock, regarding
the duties Schrock owed to the plaintiff under a settlement agreement drafted by
the attorney. The advice the attorney gave Schrock allegedly resulted in harm to
the plaintiff, and the plaintiff sued Schrock and the attorney. The Oregon Supreme
Court looked at whether the attorney’s actions in advising Schrock were within
the scope of the attorney-client relationship. If so, the attorney’s actions would be
protected from liability to third parties. The court concluded that in order to hold an
attorney liable for a client’s breach of fiduciary duty to a third party, one must prove
the attorney acted outside the scope of the attorney-client relationship.
The court found that the attorney advising Schrock had acted within the scope...

Click below for the full FREE article;

Oregon State Bar
Estate Planning and
Administration Section
PO Box 1689
Lake Oswego, OR 97035-0889