From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...
David Welch Co. v. Erskine & Tulley
California Court of Appeals
203 Cal. App. 3d 884 (1988)
Collection agency David Welch Co. (Welch) (plaintiff) developed a highly profitable specialty collecting delinquent employer contributions to employee-benefit trust funds. For eight years attorney Michael Carroll with Erskine & Tulley (E&T) (defendants) represented Welch. Neither E&T nor Carroll had previous experience doing collection work for trust funds. David Welch said he specially trained E&T attorneys, entrusted them with confidential information about his techniques and fee schedules, and introduced them to trust-fund trustees. Before turning over collections to E&T, Welch would investigate the employer’s financial status, attempt collections, prepare a case file with background documents, and draft a complaint ready for filing. Welch organized the business to preserve the confidentiality of its procedures and keep someone within the company from breaking away and starting a competitor. Welch sold in 1980 and stopped referring collection matters to E&T, and the parties terminated their relationship. The new owner increased fees charged trust funds for the first time since 1968. The next year, a trust fund transferred collection business to E&T, and two more soon followed suit. E&T did not solicit the funds, but the funds requested proposals that E&T submitted without informing Welch or requesting consent to take over the accounts. Welch typically learned it had lost an account when it received a letter from the trust fund stating that the fund had transferred business. By 1983, E&T had acquired at least 10 trust-fund clients from Welch, generating annual billings over $156,000. Welch sued for breach of fiduciary duty, claiming E&T had received $350,000 using confidential information learned from Welch to acquire its clients and compete with it. The trial court held that the law firm and Carroll breached their fiduciary duties and had to disgorge $350,000. The parties cross-appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Channell, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 552,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 552,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.