This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Mead (D) represented Roach (P) as his attorney over the years 1974-81. D formed a legal partnership with D1 in 1979. In 1980, P asked D for advice on investing $20,000 from the proceeds of a sale of a business. D gave P a promissory note for the whole amount at 15%. D offered to secure the loan through a second mortgage on his house, but upon P's deference to D's opinion, D did not secure the loan. Upon failure to repay the loan, P sued the partnership. P alleged a failure of legal advice and also alleged under the UTPA that the partnership created a likelihood of confusion concerning the service it provided to P, represented the legal service as having qualities that it did not possess, and misleadingly represented the nature of the loan. D never advised P to consult another attorney concerning the business transaction between them. P claimed that D1 was vicariously liable. D1 moved for a directed verdict, contending that he was not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of D because the negligent acts were outside the scope of the partnership's business. The trial court denied the motions, and the jury found D1 liable for $20,000 damages on both claims. The Court of Appeals held that D1 was vicariously liable for his former partner's negligence, but not liable under the UTPA claim. D1 appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.