Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)

Citation
Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Parent Document
Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2009-06-19

Other Sections in This Document (132)

Full Text

492 chars
contract means and what provisions are significant to their rights and obligations. Adopting Bisno’s argument would effectively undermine the defense whenever a client was aware of a contract provision that turned out to weaken his case. Finally, as a necessary corollary to this, the rule of full disclosure is satisfied when the lawyer has obtained the undisclosed inform a - tion from some other source. (Singleton v. Singleton (1945) 68 Cal.App.2d 681, 695 [157 P.2d 886]; Foster v. Banks