Legal Developments and Risk Management Tips Impacting the Professional Liability Community.
The defense of legal malpractice claims often hinges on a deceptively simple question: did the attorney breach their duty owed to the client? The crucial analysis often begins with an evaluation of the nature and scope of the attorney-client relationship. This relationship is the cornerstone of nearly all malpractice claims, as it gives rise to … Continued
The New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, in Bergen County, granted a motion for summary judgment in a legal malpractice case against a New Jersey attorney defended by Goldberg Segalla. Goldberg Segalla’s client was the second lawyer of three representing homeowners in an action against their insurance company for breach of contract and consumer fraud … Continued
A fervent and insightful defense waged by Goldberg Segalla partner Michael D. Shalhoub and attorney Rebecca R. Rabideau secured a defense verdict in favor of a dentist accused of malpractice in a lawsuit that dragged on for years to become the central New York county’s longest-running court case. The plaintiff claimed in her lawsuit that … Continued
You generally know the drill: a plaintiff has limited time to file suit. Generally, the statutory period begins when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that she has been harmed and that the defendant caused that harm. You also generally know that statute of limitations defenses are not nearly that simple. There are variables including the discovery rule and the gist of the action doctrine which may impact the argument. The continuous representation doctrine is another wrinkle that could affect whether a malpractice claim is subject to dismissal pursuant to the statute of limitations. In a recent decision, the Maine Supreme Court affirmed a dismissal of a legal malpractice claim on statute of limitations grounds and refused to apply the continuous representation doctrine.
A somewhat bizarre family feud presents an interesting evaluation of the general requirement of privity in order to maintain a legal malpractice claim. Consider the circumstances of when an attorney is appointed by the court to administer an estate. Who is the client? A Kansas appellate court examined this situation in Schroeder v. Brewer, 2017 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 101 (Kan. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017) which addresses whether an attorney may be held liable for legal malpractice while representing an Estate “against” the beneficiaries of the estate.
Nobody wants to be named as a defendant in a lawsuit. Litigation is expensive, time-consuming, upsetting, and often intimidating for clients. Being dragged into a suit is even more frustrating when the defendant knows the claims are entirely without merit. Defendants who are the victim of frivolous litigation are not without recourse, however. Where the underlying lawsuit is unwarranted, without evidentiary support, or presented for an improper purpose, such as harassment or delay, defendants may have the opportunity to seek damages against the plaintiff and the lawyers who brought the claim.
Your friends at Professional Liability Matters often focus on interpretation of Affidavit of Merit (“AOM”) requirements. As our handy table shows, each state has its own rules as to AOM requirements and other details regarding substance and form. These rules are of critical importance to many malpractice claims. Most states require an AOM from a professional within the same field certifying that the malpractice case has merit. This is a necessary gateway function so that litigants cannot sue professionals without any justification. Implicit in this requirement is that the typical fact-finder may not understand the appropriate standard of care, and therefore must rely upon professionals within the field. However, in some cases, an expert opinion may not be necessary to understand how the standard of care was breached. In some states this qualifies as an exception to the AOM requirement. Take for example the following case out of New Jersey which applied the common knowledge exception to the AOM requirement.