## Facts

- Joan Meighan and her husband, Clement, believed Clement suffered injury due to medical malpractice and jointly consulted Samuel Shore, a medical-malpractice attorney.
- Joan arranged the appointment and attended the consultation with Clement, where the underlying facts and potential malpractice claim were discussed.
- Shore agreed to represent Clement but had only Clement sign a retainer agreement and stated Clement—not Joan—was the client.
- Shore did not advise Joan about a potential loss-of-consortium claim, and neither spouse knew such a claim existed.
- Shore filed a medical-malpractice action naming only Clement as plaintiff.
- More than a year later, after substitution of counsel, Joan learned she could have pursued a loss-of-consortium claim, but it was then barred by the statute of limitations.
- The underlying malpractice case later settled.
- Joan sued Shore for legal malpractice/negligence, alleging his failure to advise her caused the forfeiture of her loss-of-consortium claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Shore on the ground he owed Joan no duty because she was not his client.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney who is jointly consulted by spouses about an injury to one spouse, and who undertakes representation of the injured spouse, owes a duty to inform the other spouse of a known or readily ascertainable loss-of-consortium claim when the other spouse is unaware of that right.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that, on the alleged facts, Shore owed Joan a duty to inform her of the potential loss-of-consortium cause of action (or to alert her to consult another attorney).
- The court emphasized the narrowness of the duty: it arises in the specific setting of joint spousal consultation, an apparent consortium claim, and the non-injured spouse’s lack of awareness.
- The court concluded that harm from non-disclosure was foreseeable and closely connected to the attorney’s omission, because the expected result of failing to advise was that the claim would be lost to limitations.

## Legal Principles

- An attorney’s duty of reasonable care may extend to a nonclient when the nonclient’s interests are closely connected to the representation and harm from the attorney’s conduct is reasonably foreseeable.
- When spouses jointly consult an attorney regarding a personal-injury claim of one spouse, and the attorney knows or should know the other spouse has a potential loss-of-consortium claim and is unaware of it, the attorney has a duty to inform that spouse of the claim or advise seeking separate counsel.
- This duty does not require the attorney to represent the nonclient spouse; it requires reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable forfeiture of a closely related, commonly joined claim.
- In assessing duty, courts consider foreseeability of harm, the closeness of the connection between the conduct and injury, and policy concerns, including whether the obligation is limited and administrable.

## Conclusion

The court held that an attorney retained to pursue one spouse’s injury claim, after a joint consultation with both spouses, may be liable to the other spouse for failing to warn of an obvious loss-of-consortium claim that the spouse did not know existed, where the omission foreseeably results in the claim becoming time-barred.


Meighan v. Shore, 34 Cal. App. 4th 1025 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)