Li v. Yan (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 56
The California Court of Appeal said “Enough is enough” when dealing with an attorney who had defrauded a 78 year-old client and now sought to avoid the judgment creditor’s collection efforts.
The Court reiterated that California’s so-called privilege against compelling production of tax returns, cannot be invoked to protect information showing a judgment debtor’s assets, especially where, as here, the debtor was accused of making fraudulent transfers and had made equivocal statements under oath as to the status of the debtor’s assets.
Essentially, the defalcating attorney, Yan, thought he could win the day by being unctuous.