Bandlow v. Cadigan
Docket: No. 02-16802; D.C. No. CV-99-00326-DCB
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 25, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
James E. Bandlow and Joanne M. Bandlow appeal a summary judgment that dismissed their diversity action against their former attorney, Cadigan, alleging state law tort and contract claims stemming from Cadigan's representation and subsequent withdrawal from their dismissed Arizona state court case. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reviews the summary judgment de novo, affirming on any supported ground. The Bandlows argue that Cadigan's withdrawal was improper and that she is liable for the dismissal of their case. However, the record indicates that Cadigan's court-approved withdrawal occurred months before the case was dismissed, relieving her of any duty to represent them. The court highlights that the attorney-client relationship incurs a continuing duty until the client understands that the relationship is no longer in effect. The Bandlows do not challenge the validity of the withdrawal proceeding. Further, the court finds no genuine issue of material fact regarding the Bandlows' claims of improper representation, affirming that the Bandlows failed to provide necessary expert testimony to establish legal malpractice, which is typically required unless the conduct is grossly apparent. Other contentions raised by the Bandlows, including issues related to service of a summary judgment motion, are deemed meritless. The judgment is affirmed, and the disposition is not suitable for publication or citation in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.