In-house counsel in California has been temporarily disqualified after they intercepted and used information contained in privileged e-mails which they received accidentally. Counsel for the plaintiff sent several privileged e-mails to individual plaintiffs suing their former company. These e-mail included sensitive documents, including a draft declaration. The problem is counsel for the plaintiff mistakenly sent these documents to one client’s former work e-mail address, which the company they were suing still maintained and monitored. In-house counsel for the company reviewed the e-mails sent by plaintiff’s counsel and allegedly used the information contained therein to construct a counterclaim against the plaintiffs.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a temporary protective order disqualifying the company’s outside counsel and ordering the company to retain alternate counsel who would be required to submit a new declaration indicating that new counsel has received no information regarding the mistakenly disclosed privileged information. The Court also disqualified the in-house counsel who reviewed the privileged e-mail correspondence. Finally, the Court ordered the company to dismiss its counterclaim, without prejudice, so that it could be re-filed by new counsel without reference to the privileged information.
It is obvious from this recent court ruling that attorneys need to be careful if they inadvertently come into contact with privileged information. Given the new technologies available, this problem has the increased possibility of becoming more widespread. Contact our office to get more information about your potential legal malpractice claim.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
New York Lawyers Sanctioned $15,000
A New York law firm is now paying the price because it knew that their client was lying and they used that lie to try to get a bigger settlement for their client. The firm represented a client in an employment discrimination suit. The firms’ problems arose once they knew that their client had obtained a new job and they not only failed to disclose this information to the opposing firm, they allowed their client to conceal that information under oath. The firm allowed their client to testify during her deposition that she was still waiting for a call back about a new job opportunity even though, two weeks prior to her deposition, she was awarded and accepted the position.
The Court ordered the law firm to pay $15,000 to the opposing firm representing the former employer. The client was also ordered to pay $2,500 to her former employer’s firm. The Court did note in its opinion that although the opposing law firm suffered harm, the real harm was against the judicial system and the judicial process itself. The opposing law firm also filed a motion to dismiss the employment discrimination action which the court denied.
The Court ultimately held that the testimony their client gave under oath was false, and that it was obvious based on the prior questions that the opposing firm was trying to determine whether or not she had obtained new employment. The law firm could have disclosed their client’s new employment to the opposing firm but elected not to in an effort to try to obtain a higher settlement for their client.
This Court is making a point of showing other lawyers that misleading or false statements will not be tolerated and can be quite costly. To read the full story, click here. Contact our office to get more information about your potential legal malpractice claim.
The Court ordered the law firm to pay $15,000 to the opposing firm representing the former employer. The client was also ordered to pay $2,500 to her former employer’s firm. The Court did note in its opinion that although the opposing law firm suffered harm, the real harm was against the judicial system and the judicial process itself. The opposing law firm also filed a motion to dismiss the employment discrimination action which the court denied.
The Court ultimately held that the testimony their client gave under oath was false, and that it was obvious based on the prior questions that the opposing firm was trying to determine whether or not she had obtained new employment. The law firm could have disclosed their client’s new employment to the opposing firm but elected not to in an effort to try to obtain a higher settlement for their client.
This Court is making a point of showing other lawyers that misleading or false statements will not be tolerated and can be quite costly. To read the full story, click here. Contact our office to get more information about your potential legal malpractice claim.
Monday, June 6, 2011
But My Lawyer Told Me So
One of the things lawyers are known best for is their ability to listen to a client’s situation and advise him or her accordingly. Being that the client probably doesn’t have prior experience in the legal system, the lawyer’s advice is held in very high regard. Since the lawyer’s advice is often followed to the letter, it is imperative that the lawyer do the proper amount of research into the situation before dispensing appropriate advice.
Sometimes lawyers think they already know everything there is to know about an area of law and may not perform the diligent research they normally would if they were dealing with an unfamiliar with an area of law. The problem with this is that the law is always changing. New cases come up every day so it is important that lawyers fully investigate before advising a client.
If you lawyer gave you bad advice which cost you in your lawsuit, contact our office to discuss your legal malpractice options.
Sometimes lawyers think they already know everything there is to know about an area of law and may not perform the diligent research they normally would if they were dealing with an unfamiliar with an area of law. The problem with this is that the law is always changing. New cases come up every day so it is important that lawyers fully investigate before advising a client.
If you lawyer gave you bad advice which cost you in your lawsuit, contact our office to discuss your legal malpractice options.
Friday, April 8, 2011
The Power to Admit or Deny
When a case gets put into suit, the injured party files and serves a complaint on the opposing party. The complaint lays out all of her allegations and claims. Once the opposing party receives the complaint, typically he turns it over to his lawyer to file a response. Filing a response to a complaint may seem like a very basic, run of the mill procedure, but careful attention must be paid to the allegations and the responses being made. The lawyer has a duty to investigate the allegations made and draft an accurate response to them. The best way to ensure accuracy is for the lawyer to review the complaint with the client and draft responses together. Failure to draft an accurate response could result in the lawyer making a costly error for the client. For example, if the lawyer admits an allegation that should have been denied, this could result in the client being liable for something that he should not be and ultimately could resulting in a legal malpractice claim against the lawyer. Even though an answer to the complaint may seem like a straightforward part of the case, an error so early on can be detrimental to the client in the long run. If your lawyer’s improper answer cost you, call our office today to discuss your options.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Are Experts Necessary in a Legal Malpractice Case?
A legal malpractice case is different from other types of cases in that not only must it be proven that the lawyer screwed up, it must also be proven that the underlying case would have been successful. In order to prove that the lawyer screwed up, evidence needs to be presented to show that there the lawyer had a duty to the client, the lawyer breached that duty and because of that the client suffered damages.
In a recent Connecticut Appellate Court decision, a client filed a legal malpractice claim against her former lawyer for the mishandling of her divorce proceeding. After the client and her former spouse reached a settlement agreement, they appeared in court to finalize it however the client refused to proceed. Her lawyer successfully withdrew from the case and the client represented herself at trial. The lawyer filed suit against the client to recover unpaid legal fees and the client, continuing to represent herself, filed a counterclaim for legal malpractice. During the legal malpractice proceeding, the judge would not allow the client to testify as to the harm she suffered while representing herself in the underlying divorce action because a lay person is not allowed to give expert testimony. The client did not have an expert witness to testify on her behalf and therefore she was unable to prove her claim.
In the state of Connecticut, a legal expert must testify to prove certain aspects of a legal malpractice case. It is evident by the above decision that the courts strictly adhere to this requirement. The only exception the court notes is when the lawyer’s conduct is so obviously negligence that an expert would become unnecessary. In short, unless the lawyer handling your legal malpractice case believes she can prove that your prior lawyer’s conduct was so obviously negligent that an expert is unnecessary, you should be prepared to have an expert offer an opinion in your legal malpractice case. Contact our office to discuss your potential legal malpractice claim.
In a recent Connecticut Appellate Court decision, a client filed a legal malpractice claim against her former lawyer for the mishandling of her divorce proceeding. After the client and her former spouse reached a settlement agreement, they appeared in court to finalize it however the client refused to proceed. Her lawyer successfully withdrew from the case and the client represented herself at trial. The lawyer filed suit against the client to recover unpaid legal fees and the client, continuing to represent herself, filed a counterclaim for legal malpractice. During the legal malpractice proceeding, the judge would not allow the client to testify as to the harm she suffered while representing herself in the underlying divorce action because a lay person is not allowed to give expert testimony. The client did not have an expert witness to testify on her behalf and therefore she was unable to prove her claim.
In the state of Connecticut, a legal expert must testify to prove certain aspects of a legal malpractice case. It is evident by the above decision that the courts strictly adhere to this requirement. The only exception the court notes is when the lawyer’s conduct is so obviously negligence that an expert would become unnecessary. In short, unless the lawyer handling your legal malpractice case believes she can prove that your prior lawyer’s conduct was so obviously negligent that an expert is unnecessary, you should be prepared to have an expert offer an opinion in your legal malpractice case. Contact our office to discuss your potential legal malpractice claim.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Pie on the Face of a Judge and Lawyer who use Facebook
In one of my previous blogs, I addressed the topic of Social Networking sites and the professional responsibilities involved with utilizing one of the many vastly popular websites. Recently this topic has reemerged in the spotlight, based on the actions of a North Carolina judge and defense attorney.
The case began as a child custody matter. During a meeting with counsel in chambers, the judge brought up the topic of Facebook, a popular social media website. Counsel for the plaintiff who did not have a page is reported as being unfamiliar with it. Counsel for the defendant did. The problem began when the judge and defense attorney became Facebook “friends” and by doing so, they were able to read and create posts on each others pages.
The defense attorney posted a question looking for suggestions on how to prove something in a case he was working on, yes, the same case that was before the judge. The attorney also posted a comment that was highly flattering to the judge. The judge posted a comment on his page about the case, indicating that he has two good parents to choose from.
The problem is that the attorney and judge were essentially engaging in ex-part communications by discussing the case outside of the presence of counsel for the plaintiff, which is strongly discouraged by the ethical rules. However, the judge’s problems didn’t stop there. He went on to search the internet and locate the plaintiff’s website displaying her photography and poems. While he was issuing his decision in court, the judge quoted from one of the plaintiff’s poems in his own decision, thereby revealing the fact that he had conducted his own outside research about the parties which is also strongly discouraged by the ethical rules.
The moral here is if an attorney or judge is going to make the choice to communicate with friends and family via a social networking website, make sure the boundaries of ethical obligations regarding such communications are clear and stay as far away from them as possible.
The case began as a child custody matter. During a meeting with counsel in chambers, the judge brought up the topic of Facebook, a popular social media website. Counsel for the plaintiff who did not have a page is reported as being unfamiliar with it. Counsel for the defendant did. The problem began when the judge and defense attorney became Facebook “friends” and by doing so, they were able to read and create posts on each others pages.
The defense attorney posted a question looking for suggestions on how to prove something in a case he was working on, yes, the same case that was before the judge. The attorney also posted a comment that was highly flattering to the judge. The judge posted a comment on his page about the case, indicating that he has two good parents to choose from.
The problem is that the attorney and judge were essentially engaging in ex-part communications by discussing the case outside of the presence of counsel for the plaintiff, which is strongly discouraged by the ethical rules. However, the judge’s problems didn’t stop there. He went on to search the internet and locate the plaintiff’s website displaying her photography and poems. While he was issuing his decision in court, the judge quoted from one of the plaintiff’s poems in his own decision, thereby revealing the fact that he had conducted his own outside research about the parties which is also strongly discouraged by the ethical rules.
The moral here is if an attorney or judge is going to make the choice to communicate with friends and family via a social networking website, make sure the boundaries of ethical obligations regarding such communications are clear and stay as far away from them as possible.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Failure to Timely File in Workers’ Compensation Can Be Malpractice
Lawyers have a duty to represent their clients competently no matter what type of case it is. A lawyer’s failure to do so can result in a legal malpractice claim against him or her. For example, even a case that seems straightforward, like a workers’ compensation injury, can quickly go awry if the lawyer makes a costly error.
A client is injured at work and seeks medical treatment in addition to advice from a lawyer. The lawyer works with the client to get her weekly checks started and her medical bills covered. Once the client has completed her medical treatment, and the doctor has determined that she has reached maximum medical improvement, the lawyer has a duty to get the information from the doctor and file certain paperwork with the workers’ compensation commissioner in a timely manner to ensure that the client receives all of the benefits she is due. Failure to do so could bar the client from part of her recovery.
Something as simple as a failure to follow-up on a medical record or file a form can cost a client greatly. If your lawyer screwed up your workers’ compensation case call our office today to discuss your options.
A client is injured at work and seeks medical treatment in addition to advice from a lawyer. The lawyer works with the client to get her weekly checks started and her medical bills covered. Once the client has completed her medical treatment, and the doctor has determined that she has reached maximum medical improvement, the lawyer has a duty to get the information from the doctor and file certain paperwork with the workers’ compensation commissioner in a timely manner to ensure that the client receives all of the benefits she is due. Failure to do so could bar the client from part of her recovery.
Something as simple as a failure to follow-up on a medical record or file a form can cost a client greatly. If your lawyer screwed up your workers’ compensation case call our office today to discuss your options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
