Lawwly

Roach v. Mead

Supreme Court of Oregon

722 P.2d 1229 (1986)

Relevant factsFree

Berentson and Mead (defendants) were law partners, and Mead had represented Roach (plaintiff) on prior legal matters. When Roach asked Mead for investment advice, Mead offered to personally borrow the money at 15 percent interest, and Roach -- believing this was legal advice from his lawyer -- gave Mead $20,000, which Mead never repaid. Roach sued the partnership for negligence, and Berentson argued he wasn't liable because Mead's conduct fell outside the ordinary scope of the firm's legal practice; the jury found Berentson vicariously liable, and the court of appeals affirmed.

IssueFree

Whether a partner in a law firm may be held vicariously liable for another partner's failure to advise a client about the legal risks of loaning that partner money.

Unlock the full brief

Free accounts read 20 full briefs. No card required.