[The name of each client in the case title, and any associated brief, is replaced by the proper form of the word "client."]

Client v. Cooperative of American Physicians, Inc., Mutual Protection Trust ("CAP-MPT") (1998) United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, No. 97-56217 (appellant, pending) Defendant health care provider in underlying medical malpractice action, in response to proper discovery, misrepresented insurance coverage, causing plaintiff client to settle to his detriment. Client plaintiff brought subsequent misrepresentation action against both defendant health care provider and its attorney. District Court dismissed subsequent action, on basis that health care provider and attorney were entitled to immunity based on litigation privilege conferred by California Civil Code § 47(b)(2), in face of enactment of California Civil Code § 47(b)(3), specifically withdrawing litigation privilege in instances in which insurance coverage is misrepresented. [brief]

Clients v. United States (1998) United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, No. 97-55535 (appellant, affirmed) Mother rendered comatose during child-birth, by admitted negligence of United Navy physicians. Clients mother, newborn daughter, and U.S. Marine corporal husband/father, sue for medical malpractice. Husband/father appointed conservator/ guardian ad litem, for wife/newborn daughter, respectively. At court-supervised settlement conference, defendant United States of America offers de minimus settlement. In negotiating stance, clients' attorney opines that offered amount would not be sufficient for attorney's fees. Based on that statement, on motion of defendant United States of America, District Court removes both husband/father conservator/guardian ad litem, and clients' attorney, on basis that they have conflicts of interest. District Court appoints one attorney to act pro bono as guardian ad litem for comatose mother and newborn daughter, and another attorney to act pro bono as attorney for comatose mother and newborn daughter. Shortly after their appointment, pro bono guardian ad litem and pro bono attorney, settle with defendant United States of America, on same basis previously rejected by husband/father as inadequate. Ninth Circuit affirmed. Petition for certiorari to United States Supreme Court. [brief]

Clients v. Holmes (1998) No. 98-55140 (appellant, pending) Mother rendered comatose during child-birth, by admitted negligence of United Navy physicians. Clients mother, newborn daughter, and U.S. Marine corporal husband/father, sue for medical malpractice. Husband/father appointed conservator/ guardian ad litem, for wife/newborn daughter, respectively. At court-supervised settlement conference, defendant United States of America offers de minimus settlement. In negotiating stance, clients' attorney opines that offered amount would not be sufficient for attorney's fees. Based on that statement, on motion of defendant United States of America, District Court removes both husband/father conservator/guardian ad litem, and clients' attorney, on basis that they have conflicts of interest. District Court appoints one attorney to act pro bono as guardian ad litem for comatose mother and newborn daughter, and another attorney to act pro bono as attorney for comatose mother and newborn daughter. Shortly after their appointment, pro bono guardian ad litem and pro bono attorney, settle with defendant United States of America, on same basis previously rejected by husband/father as inadequate. Clients bring action for legal malpractice against pro bono guardian and pro bono attorney. District Court dismisses action on the basis of res judicata. [brief]