"Miranda v. Said: No Need to Get 'Emotional,'" ABA Professional Liability Newsletter October 30, 2013
In the recent Miranda v. Said decision, writes Saleel V. Sabnis, an attorney in Goldberg Segalla’s Professional Liability Practice Group, “the Iowa Supreme Court held in a 5–1 decision that emotional-distress damages are available to plaintiffs in a legal-malpractice action involving an immigration attorney whose reckless representation led to the plaintiffs’ banishment from the country and separation from their children.”
The decision, Saleel writes, spurred an outcry from overzealous bloggers who predicted it would “open the proverbial door for allowing emotional-distress damages in all types of cases and trigger the overused ‘chilling effect’ on practicing law. … That Miranda will begin a new trend to allow for mental anguish in all types of legal-malpractice claims is an overreaction.”
In this article, Saleel examines the real impact of the Miranda decision and explores the recoverability of emotional-distress damages in legal-malpractice cases.
Read the article here:
- Saleel V. Sabnis, “Miranda v. Said: No Need to Get ‘Emotional,’” American Bar Association Section of Litigation Professional Liability Newsletter, October 30, 2013