Legal Developments and Risk Management Tips Impacting the Professional Liability Community.
A lawsuit that included allegations ranging from gross negligence to false and deceptive advertising over nearly three decades, brought against a major international insurance brokerage represented by Goldberg Segalla, has been dismissed by a New York court. The case stemmed from a cyberattack and social-engineering scheme that resulted in the loss of nearly $3 million …
The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is seeking comments by Tuesday, June 6 on its newly proposed Accounting Standards Update (ASU). With the world of digital assets moving at lightning speed, the FASB’s proposed amendments are part of its ongoing efforts to update accounting standards for, and disclosure of, certain digital assets. WHAT IS THE FASB? The FASB, established in 1973, …
A Pennsylvania attorney sued in connection with a workers’ compensation matter was cleared of legal malpractice and the suit against him was dismissed after a court agreed with the arguments put forth by Goldberg Segalla partner Seth L. Laver. The case stemmed from the alleged injuries suffered by a hotel banquet worker who claimed his decade-plus …
Christopher F. Lyon – a partner in the firm’s Management and Professional Liability practice group – co-authored an article in ABA’s The Brief on the transition to remote work pre- and post-pandemic, and the new E&O risks associated with remote work in professional services. The article examines the shift to remote work for professionals including lawyers, insurance brokers, and financial-service …
COVID-19 has changed the practice of law. Whether the changes are permanent or temporary, many have occasioned increased risks of malpractice claims against lawyers and law firms. To help our clients meet these new challenges, Goldberg Segalla has compiled a guide for avoiding and mitigating legal malpractice claims stemming from COVID-19. The link is available …
In May 2019, Section 8-107 of title 8 of the NYC admin code was amended to make it unlawful for an employer and others to test for marijuana or THC as a condition of employment. This law becomes effective May 10, 2020. The NYC Commission on Human Rights is promulgating rules for the implementation of this law. There was a public hearing on January 9, 2020 concerning potential exceptions to the general prohibition on pre-employment testing to which written testimony by interested parties was submitted. There will be another opportunity for public comment if proposed rules are published, so keep an eye out for further notice from the commission.
Key Takeaways: Make sure that the Homeowners Association (HOA)/Condominium board of directors includes protocols wherein its owners are aware of the rules (declaration and by-laws) and have appropriate expectations when living in the community. In litigation, courts sometimes intervene and substitute its finding for the board’s finding in accordance with the business judgment rule, …
Hackers have successfully hit at least five US law firms within the past few weeks. Reportedly, the attacks are part of a coordinated effort potentially affecting nearly 200 victims in January alone. As if that were not frightening enough, the threat to law firms and to their clients, has magnified substantially in light of the type of attack now employed against law firms.
There are so many risk management sources, theories and tips for the practitioner seeking to avoid a malpractice claim. But, there is less direction available to the professional that does make a mistake and knows about it. What are the obligations to the client, to the carrier, to others once we discover that we’ve dropped the ball? Are there implications on the statute of limitations? The South Dakota Supreme Court addressed these questions in a recent decision.
At its simplest and most basic level, a professional malpractice policy for an attorney serves to insure against claims of malpractice. The devil is in the details, of course. In a recent decision, the Second Circuit affirmed a decision denying coverage to an attorney involved in a dispute over collection of his legal fee. The decision provides an interesting coverage lesson as well as a lesson about the sensitive nature of seeking to collect on a disputed fee.