In 2010, a Texas state court judge filed suit against a well known plaintiff’s attorney. The judge’s complaint included allegations of defamation and extortion. This complaint stemmed from a long standing issue between the judge and attorney. The attorney originally filed a petition with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct which the judge alleges was solely an attempt to diminish the judge’s changes of re-election. The attorney’s petition claimed the judge belittled, berated and ridiculed his colleagues to the public as well as to other judges. Additionally, after pre-suit discovery was conducted, the judge alleged the attorney based his petition on events reported to him by other sources, rather than based on firsthand knowledge.
After filing the petition, the attorney did not act on it until a few weeks before the filing deadline for judicial candidates, at which time the attorney gave copies of the complaint to several media sources. But it did not end there. The attorney also e-mailed a copy of the complaint to over 100 members of the local American Board of Trial Advocates. The question remains whether the attorney filed the complaint was acting in good faith and had knowledge of the judicial misconduct he is asserting or whether he was acting with reckless disregard for the truth of the information he received in violation of Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2. The case is continuing. It is not only clients that are critical of judges and lawyers. Lawyers and judges sometimes point their fingers at each other. Who is correct does not matter. What does matter is that if you have been injured because someone acted improperly you should consider having a lawyer review your situation.
Contact our office to discuss your potential legal malpractice claim.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Attorney May be on the Hook for Improper Notary Practice
In many states attorneys receive a notary commission without having to pass an examination. While notarizing a document is often something that is viewed as more of an administrative task, attorneys who engage in sloppy notary practice may find themselves facing disciplinary action or other liability. It is easy to view notarizing a document as simply a formality, but each affidavit or verification is a sworn legal document and notarizing same could have serious implications for the signer, notary and the lawyer who prepared the document.
If an attorney pressures an employee to notarize a document improperly, she may be violating the rules of professional conduct. While it may not seem like common practice, it is happening more often that one might expect. For example, a senior partner in a large firm asks a young associate to notarize a document in a large case, however, the document was signed prior to the young associate’s involvement. The young associate notarizes or asks a paralegal to notarize the document. In determining whether the young associate has engaged in improper notary practice it is necessary to consult the law of the state. In some states notaries must verify that the document was signed in his or her presence. In other states it is the simple matter of verifying the signature even if there was no personal appearance.
In an effort to adhere to the rules of professional conduct, the young associate’s best bet in this type of situation would be to draft a new document for the person to sign in the presence of the notary. Contact our office to discuss your potential legal malpractice claim.
If an attorney pressures an employee to notarize a document improperly, she may be violating the rules of professional conduct. While it may not seem like common practice, it is happening more often that one might expect. For example, a senior partner in a large firm asks a young associate to notarize a document in a large case, however, the document was signed prior to the young associate’s involvement. The young associate notarizes or asks a paralegal to notarize the document. In determining whether the young associate has engaged in improper notary practice it is necessary to consult the law of the state. In some states notaries must verify that the document was signed in his or her presence. In other states it is the simple matter of verifying the signature even if there was no personal appearance.
In an effort to adhere to the rules of professional conduct, the young associate’s best bet in this type of situation would be to draft a new document for the person to sign in the presence of the notary. Contact our office to discuss your potential legal malpractice claim.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
New Report of an Increase in Legal Malpractice Claims
The AmLaw Daily recently published an article noting an increase in legal malpractice claims between 2010 and 2011 as a result of the state of the economy and the real estate market. Real estate practices were cited as the most likely to be sued due to conflicts of interest and failure to file timely as the main basis’s for claims. The survey polled six insurance companies who provide legal malpractice insurance coverage to approximately seventy-five percent of large and midsized law firms in the United States. One insurance company surveyed noted an 11 to 20 percent increase in claims within the first six months of 2011. One company noted it’s claims rate had increased by 20%, three companies said their claims rates increased by 6 to 10 percent, and the remaining two said their claims rates have remained stable.
It is anticipated, according to the article, that once the real estate market rebounds, the claims of legal malpractice against real estate firms should level back to where they were. During the recession, another publication published an article after consulting with several lawyers, who predicted that law firms could expect to see a rise in legal malpractice suits due to clients being more inclined to seek ways of recouping some of their losses in revenue from other sources, specifically, litigation. To read the article in its entirety, click here.
It is anticipated, according to the article, that once the real estate market rebounds, the claims of legal malpractice against real estate firms should level back to where they were. During the recession, another publication published an article after consulting with several lawyers, who predicted that law firms could expect to see a rise in legal malpractice suits due to clients being more inclined to seek ways of recouping some of their losses in revenue from other sources, specifically, litigation. To read the article in its entirety, click here.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Careless E-Mailing Leads to Disqualification
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
