Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Ethics (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Malpractice (2)
- Advocacy expert (1)
- Advocate (1)
-
- Breach of duty (1)
- Breach of fiduciary duty (1)
- California (1)
- Causation (1)
- Causation of damages (1)
- Civil liability (1)
- Clean expert (1)
- Code of conduct (1)
- Consulting expert (1)
- Courts (1)
- Damages (1)
- Dirty expert (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Ethics rules (1)
- Expert (1)
- Expert draft report (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (1)
- Independent expert (1)
- Lawyer-client dispute (1)
- Legal certainty (1)
- Legal malpractice (1)
- Legal malpractice litigation (1)
- Legal negligence (1)
- Legal team (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Causation And "Legal Certainty" In Legal Malpractice Law, Vincent R. Johnson
Causation And "Legal Certainty" In Legal Malpractice Law, Vincent R. Johnson
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
A line of California cases holds that causation of damages in legal malpractice actions must be proven with “legal certainty.” This Article argues that judicial references to legal certainty are ambiguous and threaten to undermine the fairness of legal malpractice litigation as a means for resolving lawyer-client disputes. Courts should eschew the language of legal certainty and plainly state that damages are recoverable if a legal malpractice plaintiff proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those losses were factually and proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of duty.
"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill
"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …
The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell
The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
This Article addresses an issue courts across the country continue to struggle with: When are ethics rules appropriately considered enforceable substantive obligations, and when should they only be enforceable through the disciplinary process? The question is complicated by the ethics rules themselves. Paragraph 20 of the Scope section of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct includes seemingly contradictory guidance; it states the Rules are not to be used to establish civil liability, but also that they can be “some evidence” of a violation of a lawyer’s standard of care. Most states have adopted this paradoxal Paragraph 20 language. Consequently, courts …