[13] An exception that a pleading is vague and embarrassing strikes at the formulation of a cause of action and its legal validity. It is not directed at a particular paragraph within a cause of action but at the cause of action as a whole, which must be demonstrated to be vague and embarrassing. As was stated in the
pleadings is to enable each side to come to trial prepared to meet the case of the other and not be taken by surprise. Pleadings must therefore be lucid and logical and in an intelligible form; the cause of action or defence must appear clearly from the factual allegations made (Harms Civil Procedure in the Supreme Court at 263-4).
[4] Uniform rule 18 (1) requires a combined summons, and every other pleading except a summons, to be signed by both an advocate and an attorney or, in the case of an attorney who, under section 4 (2) of the Right of Appearance in Courts Act 62 of 1995 ("the Right of Appearance Act"), has the right of appearance in the Supreme
A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruling issued weeks ago in a securities fraud class action suggests that in some cases lawyers who do not heed “red flags” about pleading weaknesses which they later attribute to their investigator’s shortcomings can be subjected to Rule 11 sanctions. Because valuable lessons can be learned ...
The plaintiff cited to two engagement letters between the company and the attorney, which referenced doing legal services “as required by the board of directors,” of which the plaintiff was one at the time. The court of appeals held:
The attorney filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that he owed the minority shareholder no fiduciary duty because he never represented him, which the trial court granted. The plaintiff appealed. Regarding the existence of the attorney-client relationship, the court of appeals stated:
In Pennington v. Fields, the majority of shareholders of a closely held business forced the buy-out of the minority shareholder and litigation ensued. No. 05-17-00321-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 6601 (Tex. App.—Dallas August 21, 2018, no pet. history). Later, the minority shareholder sued the majority shareholder’s attorney and alleged that he committed legal malpractice by, among other things, negligently advising the majority to engage in oppression and breaches of fiduciary duties and that he failed to advise the minority shareholder to protect his interests against the misconduct of the majority. The attorney filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that he owed the minority shareholder no fiduciary duty because he never represented him, which the trial court granted. The plaintiff appealed.
Pennington asserts he believed Collins was “advising him and representing his interests” because Collins represented to Pennington that Pennington’s interests were not adverse to Fields’s and Phillips’s. He contends Collins admitted he was representing all three directors.
An attorney—client relationship was not created between Collins and Pennington simply because Collins discussed matters with Pennington that were relevant to both Pennington’s and Advantage’s interests. Id.
The existence of a duty is an element of a legal malpractice claim. The attorney—client relationship is a contractual relationship that arises from a lawyer’s agreement to render professional services to a client. The agreement may sometimes be implied from the parties’ conduct.
Certainly, an attorney can represent more than one party; in fact, that is very common. For example, a law firm may represent a shareholder and the company in an asset sale transaction. More commonly, a law firm may represent both spouses in the sale of real property, the leasing of minerals, or in estate planning.