McCutchan v. McChutchan, Sonoma County Superior Court Case Number SCV-254228.



Attorney B. Edward McCutchan of the Sunderland McCutchan law firm is listed by the court of appeals as the attorney for the plaintiff and appellant.

The plaintiff and appellant is also B. Edward McCutchan, Jr.




According to Lawzilla's understanding of the Court of Appeals ruling, this is what happened:

Attorney B. Edward McCutchan represents the plaintiff, who may be himself, in an action involving the plaintiff's brother.

McCutchan filed a motion to vacate a interlocutory judgment on a quiet title claim.

He lost.

Then attorney McCutchan filed an appeal.




The court of appeals said the legal brief for the appeal "provid[ed] no summary of the facts or the evidence submitted at trial".




The justices also said "Edward [McCutchan" has not clearly challenged any of the trial court’s findings".

The judges said Mr. McCutchan "failed" to meet his burden in his brief and "he has waived any substantial evidence challenge by failing to provide a fair summary of all of the material evidence in his opening brief."




Repeatedly, the judges referred to the fact "Edward [McCutchan] has waived any substantial evidence challenge."




Then, turning to his reply brief, the court of appeals said McCutchan "fails to respond at all to defendants' arguments. By failing to provide reasoned argument supported by legal authority in his opening brief, Edward has waived his ... argument ".




Finally, the defendants requested sanctions because attorney Edward McCutchan pursued a frivolous appeal.

The unanimous court of appeals indicated they agreed with defendants assessment saying the "complete absence of merit in any of Edward's arguments, his appeal is arguably frivolous."

However, sanctions were not awarded because defendants did not file a timely declaration stating how much sanctions were sought.

From our read of the appellate decision the saying one should not act as their own attorney comes to mind - presuming Mr. McCutchan and his law firm was representing himself (the same name is referenced down to the "jr".

In our opinion the language from the court of appeals is harsh.

They said Edward McCutchan had filed a brief that waived issues. Had not responded to defendant's arguments. Had not provided reasoned argument supported by legal authority.

They stated there was a complete absence of merit to attorney McCutchan's arguments.

That is not what we would look for in an attorney.

We would want an attorney who is procedurally competent, knows the law, preserves issues instead of waiving them, and does not pursue claims lacking merit.

From what we read it appears attorney B. Edward McCutchan is fortunate he was not sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal. We believe it is possible that type of sanction could be reportable to the State Bar and result in attorney discipline.

Edward McCutchan, Jr. was admitted to the California Bar in 1985. Bar Number 119376.

Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP
1803 Vineyard Plaza, Suite 907
Healdsburg, California 95448

Law School: Golden Gate University