Connection lost
Server error
Roach v. Mead Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A lawyer’s partner was held vicariously liable for the lawyer’s negligent investment advice to a client, as the advice fell within the apparent scope of the law firm’s business. The Unlawful Trade Practices Act did not apply.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a partnership can be liable for a partner’s negligence if a client reasonably believes the partner’s actions are within the ordinary course of the partnership’s business, particularly concerning legal advice.
Roach v. Mead Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Roach, a client of attorney Mead, sought Mead’s advice regarding the investment of $20,000. Mead, a partner in a law firm with defendant Berentson, advised Roach to lend the money to Mead personally at a 15% interest rate. Roach testified he considered this to be legal advice and trusted Mead to protect his interests. Mead executed a promissory note but failed to secure the loan, advise Roach to seek independent legal counsel, disclose the conflict of interest, warn of the risks of an unsecured loan, or inform Roach that the interest rate was usurious. Mead subsequently borrowed an additional $1,500 under similar circumstances. Mead defaulted on the loans and was later declared bankrupt. Roach had previously used the law firm for various matters, including tax preparation by Berentson. Roach sued Berentson, as Mead’s partner, for vicarious liability due to Mead’s negligence and for violations of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The trial court found for Roach on both claims; the Court of Appeals affirmed the negligence liability but reversed on the UTPA claim.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a law partner vicariously liable for another partner’s negligent failure to properly advise a client on the legal implications of a loan made by the client to that partner, when the client reasonably believed such advice was part of the partnership’s business?
Yes, the defendant partner is vicariously liable for his partner’s negligence. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do ei
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a law partner vicariously liable for another partner’s negligent failure to properly advise a client on the legal implications of a loan made by the client to that partner, when the client reasonably believed such advice was part of the partnership’s business?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the principle that a law partnership's liability for a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel
Legal Rule
Under Oregon's Uniform Partnership Law, ORS 68.250 and 68.270, partners are jointly Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deser
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding Berentson Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.