A contracted party breached a working agreement after materials to complete that agreement were provided by the contractor, by not doing the work he was contracted for. He then kept the materials, and refused to return them, which were worth a considerable (six figures) amount of money. He was advised by a third party who was hired to review the original contract, that he didn't need to honor the contract; and further, the third party acted as the fiduciary to give the bad news to the first party, and creating false allegations which he knew not to be true about the first party's intentions to justify his advice. The ultimate aim of the second and third party was to drive the first party out of business by impeding their ability to complete a contract for which the second party was hired to provide services as part of. There is no doubt civil theft, conversion, and unjust enrichment are viable claims; my question is whether the fiduciary could also be attached to the complaint; including a conspiracy or something along those lines
I presume from your answer that if the third party was an attorney, then your advice would still be applicable, save for the latter point; and I guess you are answering my first question with a "yes," in that the thrid party can be included in a Civil Theft even though they did not directly benefit, correct?
The SOL on the tort aspect has passed for adding the third party (conversion, unjust enrichment, etc., which I don't think would apply anyway). An action has been filed on the second party within the four years. So the only thing left to include the third party is Civil Theft (5 years) and whatever else of 5 years SOL. Is not conspiracy a 4 year SOL?
Would your answer on the attorney remain the same if the attorney took an active part in carrying out the advice?
If the second party is out of state to the first party, and the second party hires their local (out of state) attorney for advice, then that attorney hires a local attorney to the first party (Florida) who then takes an active roll in testifying at a court hearing with erroneous information he knew to be false, and as a result of that advice, his clients (the second party and out of state attorney) benefits from keeping the materials, I don't see how the attorney is not held to other accountability by the damaged party directly, regardless what his end was; and that would come out in discovery. Even if his end was constrained solely to a fee arrangement, I would think he stepped outside the boundaries of merely being a bad lawyer answerable only to his clients, when he gave false testimony. Am I wrong?
Dave, FYI, the attorney's appearance and testimony was in a Federal Court, where he was not a party in interest, and in fact interrupted a hearing with impromptu outbursts from the back of the court, in addition to a written letter that levied the false allegations he knew not to be true. So I am aware of your final conclusion on just naming him; the original question pertains to whether or not he is attached to a statute whereby the SOL does not apply, since it is past 4 years. Unless you cite something else, the only one that applies is Civil Theft; and tactically, the issue of his benefitting is tied to a conspiracy component, that "might" be mitigated (to plead) by a 4 year SOL. Am I correct? (I'll take care of your rating on each of these steps; so thanks on that.)
Did you have a final reply to my last question; since it is hinged the original question that was never answered?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).