Legal Developments and Risk Management Tips Impacting the Professional Liability Community.
Despite his untimely death, Michael Jackson continues to generate considerable media attention, tabloid fodder, and litigation. Most recently, Jackson’s former publicist, Raymone K. Bain, filed a malpractice suit to recover from her former attorneys. In Bain v. Gary Williams Parenti Watson & Gary PL et al., the King of Pop’s publicist alleges that her attorneys …
Alex Rodriguez is widely considered one of the greatest baseball players of his generation, but much of his career is filled with controversy. The most recent debate concerns A-Rod’s receipt of a hefty salary from the Yankees although he has not played a single game this year. Reportedly, the 12-time All Star is now grumbling that the Yankees are intent on keeping him off of the field so as to trigger insurance dollars. In December 2007, Rodriguez and the Yankees agreed to a 10-year, $275 million contract; at the time, the richest contract in baseball history. Following his underwhelming performance in the 2012 playoffs, and his off-season surgery which may not heal this year, A-Rod is reportedly questioning whether the Yankees are conspiring to keep him on the disabled list so as to trigger an insurance clause to cover his albatross-like contract.
The attorney-client privilege is among the oldest and most established evidentiary privileges in law. Although it is perhaps the most frequently cited privilege, it certainly is not the only grounds to object to the disclosure of a client’s communications. Spouses also enjoy a special relationship that justifies withholding certain communications. Under the so-called “spousal communications privilege,” a/k/a “marital privilege,” confidential communications between spouses may be protected from disclosure in civil and criminal cases. But what happens when the attorney-client and spousal privileges collide?
For a free copy of this month’s edition of Professional Liability Monthly, click here. To be added to our circulation list, where you will receive this publication for free each month via email, please contact Brian Biggie at bbiggie@goldbergsegalla.com.
Cases provided courtesy of LexisNexis.
Legal malpractice claims are on the rise…again. According to a recent study, lateral transitions by attorneys may be to blame. Professionally Liability Matters previously discussed an uptick in malpractice claims, particularly those stemming from attorneys handling real estate matters. However, a new survey released last week by Ames & Gough demonstrated an overall increase in legal malpractice claims and suggested that swapping firms is a main culprit.
With summer break in effect, many students are utilizing the time off from school to participate in internships. Internships provide students with an opportunity to gain work experience in a particular field and, arguably, make them more marketable upon graduation. However, these intangible benefits may not excuse an employer from failing to pay interns under state and federal labor laws.
On Thursday, June 13, 2013, a proposed class action was filed on behalf of all former and current employees of Chef Gordon Ramsey’s Los Angeles restaurant “The Fat Cow.” The class action is led by a former server, barista, and two hostesses who are taking their beef to California state court against the celebrity chef’s restaurant. The class action alleges that the restaurant’s management took tips from former employees, and violated a series of other wage-and-hour labor codes. The Fat Cow opened its doors on October 1st, 2012, and is already catching steam over improper managerial practices.
A recent study suggests that the non-profit sector is generally underinsured and unprepared for liability risks. In its Nonprofit Risk Survey, available here an international risk advisor concluded that nonprofits are not allocating enough dollars to properly protect against risk. Far too many non-profits have not completed an independent risk assessment meaning that they are unaware of their vulnerabilities. Since many non-profits surveyed are purchasing the bare minimum coverage, this is a recipe for disaster.
A recent decision provides hope for supporters of the “loss of chance” doctrine and further fuels the debate. Pursuant to this controversial doctrine, which has now been adopted in 23 states, a plaintiff may recover damages from a defendant due to a heightened risk of injury, even if the plaintiff cannot prove causation. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently joined those courts embracing the doctrine in the medical malpractice context. In its recent decision, the court permitted the parents of a seven-year-old girl afflicted by a rare form of cancer to pursue a medical malpractice recovery even though they could not prove that the defendant caused her condition. The suit has reignited an intense debate and has generated national attention.