When plaintiff called Allen, Allen was able to induce Stolpman to return plaintiff's telephone calls. Plaintiff also discussed with Allen the legal theory of gross negligence, and Allen explained that the theory is difficult to prove and requires intentional conduct. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the terms of Allen's representation were set forth in the retainer agreement Allen signed, that Allen never limited the scope of the representation, and that plaintiff consulted with Allen from time to time on matters related to the lawsuit. Plaintiff's declaration also stated that he would call Allen from time to time to discuss the status of the case and that Allen would respond that he did not have the case in front of him but that Allen would get back to him. Plaintiff presented evidence that he relied on Allen as his attorney; called Allen to inquire about the status of the case; and discussed with Allen potential legal theories such as gross negligence.

Download full case here.