Shield Aviation v Donald Corum, San Diego County Superior Court Case Number 37-2017-00011698.
Caycie Bradford-McBee, aka Caycie Bradford aka Caycie Dawn Bradford-McBee is listed in the appellate court records as the attorney for the defendant filing the appeal. She is also listed in the San Diego Superior Court records as the attorney for the defendant.
From the court of appeals ruling it is Lawzilla's understanding the following happened:
The plaintiff sued Donald Corum, represented by attorney Bradford-McBee, for breach of contract. The claim was he agreed to sell a truck but failed to deliver title to the vehicle. Corum also failed to disclose he did not hold clear title to the truck.
After a trial the judge found in favor plaintiff.
The court awarded compensatory damages of $9132.32, punitive damages of $10,000, and attorney's fees.
An appeal was then filed.
However, the three judges on the court of appeal unanimously held that attorney Caycie Bradford-McBee failed to provide an adequate record for the appeal to be considered. Plaintiff argued the appeal was "forfeited". No response or reply was filed by Bradford-McBee, Esq. The judges said they "agree" with the other party that there was an inadequate record, no error was shown, and the judgment had to be affirmed.
For example, although the legal argument was the contract was illegal, attorney Bradford-McBee failed to provide the court of appeal with a copy of the contract so they could evaluate its legality.
The court of appeal also noted that before the trial court there was a stipulation the contract was enforceable. Caycle Bradford could not argue for her client on appeal the contract was not enforceable. The stipulation was binding - especially since the contract was not made available to review.
Lawzilla Commentary and Review: This is just one case, but wowsa, in our opinion this appears to be bad lawyering.
Aside from losing the case and seeing her client be hit with punitive damages, it is hard to square what the court of appeal said with competent legal representation.
If one asserts a contract is illegal why wouldn't the attorney present the contract to the judges?
In our opinion that would seem to be a critically important document.
How did Ms. Bradford-McBee expect the judges to rule in her client's favor if they could not even see the contract? The judges said the contract was "necessary".
Based on what the justices said we would likely not recommend Caycie Dawn Bradford-McBee be retained as a lawyer.
Update: We reached out to Ms. Bradford-McBee to get further information or explanation of why the court of appeals ruled how it did. She responded, but said we did not have permission to publish anything from her email. Similar to the court of appeals saying it was not being given necessary information, we seem to be in the same type of situation with respect to this article. The limitation could also suggest what we were being told was not entirely accurate. We thus have to maintain our review and recommendation.
Second Update: We reached out to Caycie Bradford-McBee again about the case. Based on her responses we reached an opinion that not only is she a really bad attorney, but if she was paid for the defense it was akin to theft. Her client took money for selling a truck he did not own clear title to. Then he stole the truck back from the buyer. There was a stipulation the contract was valid. The trial went so bad her client got hit with punitive damages.
Then, on appeal, the judges ripped the attorney as she forfeited the appeal. It was a waste of time, money, and the public's judicial resources.
Based on what Ms. Bradford-McBee told us we began to wonder if she violated her ethical duties as a lawyer to only present legitimate and valid claims to a court.
was admitted to the California Bar in 2011. Bar Number 278514.
C. Bradford Law Firm
29000 South Western Avenue Suite 401
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Law School: University of LaVerne
Based on her law firm profile, it is our understanding Caycie also goes by the name Caycie Bradford.