O'Grady v. Boldt

Summary

Heir hunter contracts that grant a non-lawyer the power to select and pay for an attorney and control the litigation are void as against public policy under *Estate of Butler* (1947) 29 Cal.2d 644, even if the heir hunter does not personally act as the attorney. The court affirmed summary judgment voiding a 35% assignment agreement obtained by a private investigator, distinguishing *Estate of Wright* (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 228, where the contract was limited to genealogical services. Void contracts cannot be ratified, and laches does not bar a challenge to void agreements.

Holdings

1. The assignments are void as against public policy and unenforceable.
2. Void contracts cannot be ratified.
3. Laches does not apply because O'Grady cannot show unreasonable delay and prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the May 1997 assignments are enforceable as valid assignments.
2. Whether the assignments are void as against public policy because they authorized O'Grady to select and pay for an attorney and control litigation, constituting the unlawful practice of law.
3. Whether O'Grady can rely on ratification or laches to enforce the assignments.

Disposition

affirmed