## Facts

- Fred Redman retained the law offices known as “MacDonald, Brunsell & Walters” in 1969 to prosecute litigation and advanced $1,000 for costs.
- The underlying lawsuit was filed listing “MacDonald, Brunsell & Walters” as attorneys of record; William Walters was the “Walters” in the firm name.
- In 1970, Walters left the association and practiced elsewhere.
- Walters declared he never met Redman, did not know of his existence, had no communications about Redman’s lawsuit, performed no work on it, and received no compensation from it.
- Redman’s dealings on the case were exclusively with another lawyer in the office (Brunsell).
- After Walters’s departure, the litigation continued with different firm names appearing as counsel of record, without a formal substitution order and without Redman’s express consent to a change of attorneys.
- In late 1974, the underlying lawsuit was dismissed for failure to bring it to trial within five years under California’s five-year dismissal statute.
- Redman sued Walters and others for malpractice/breach of duty; Walters moved for summary judgment based on noninvolvement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Walters and dismissed the action against him; Redman appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney can be liable for malpractice or breach of professional duty when the attorney’s name appeared in the firm designation on pleadings, but the attorney did not undertake, know of, or participate in the client’s representation.
2. Whether the summary judgment record showed any triable issue of material fact that Walters owed or breached a duty to Redman.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal treated the order as an appealable dismissal as to Walters and reached the merits.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for Walters.
- Walters’s uncontradicted evidence established he never undertook representation of Redman, had no knowledge of the matter, and performed no services for Redman.
- Redman failed to present admissible evidence creating a triable factual dispute as to Walters’s involvement or any duty owed.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when the moving party’s evidence negates an essential element of the claim and the opposing party fails to present competent evidence showing a triable issue of material fact.
- A legal malpractice or negligence claim requires an attorney-client relationship or other basis for a professional duty; without an undertaking or participation in representation, no duty is established.
- The mere appearance of an attorney’s name in a firm title or on pleadings, without evidence of knowledge, agreement, participation, or responsibility for the matter, does not by itself create individual professional liability.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against Walters because undisputed evidence showed he did not undertake or participate in Redman’s representation and therefore owed no professional duty connected to the litigation’s dismissal.


Redman v. Walters, 88 Cal. App. 3d 448 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)