A Los Angeles jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $100,000 in damages in a malpractice lawsuit against prominent celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos. The plaintiff alleged he conspired with now-imprisoned lawyer Michael Avenatti at the expense of a client's legal claims against sports apparel giant Nike.
However, in a curious twist, the defendant is arguing he is not liable for the damages award because jurors also found he did not cause harm.
The legal malpractice case revolved around a potential settlement offered by Nike to Avenatti's client. Avenatti and the defendant lawyer allegedly refused to tell the client about the settlement offer unless Nike paid them tens of millions of dollars in a separate negotiation - one the client was not aware of. Avenatti was later arrested and sentenced to prison for his extortion attempt of Nike. The defendant Geragos was never charged with any crimes.
The jury heard six days of testimony and deliberated for five hours before rejecting fraud and fraudulent concealment claims against the defendant Geragos; however, it concluded that he provided "knowingly substantial assistance or encouragement" to Avenatti when Avenatti harmed his client. Jurors found the defendant had "actual knowledge" that Avenatti was wronging the client, but they concluded his conduct was not a substantial factor in the ultimate harm to the client, despite the finding that the defendant owed the client a fiduciary duty, but did not breach that duty.
The $100,000 award was entered as non-economic compensatory damages. It includes no punitive damages because jurors concluded Geragos did not act with malice, oppression, or fraud. A motion to reconcile the verdict or a motion for a new trial is likely. Meghann Cuniff, "Jury in Mark Geragos' malpractice trial finds $100K in damages, but who will pay?" www.legalaffairsandtrials.com. (Jul 17, 2025).
Commentary
One of the many facets of this case involves allegations that the lawyers failed to tell the client about an offer of settlement. This implicates ABA Model Rule 1.2: Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
That rule states, in part:
Client-Lawyer Relationship
(a) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. …
(c) A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
Attorneys must always give their best advice and counsel to a client when resolving the client's legal matters, subject to the restrictions set out above.
