Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
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.
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 …
Avoid Being A Defendant: Estate Planning Malpractice And Ethical Concerns., Gerry W. Beyer
Avoid Being A Defendant: Estate Planning Malpractice And Ethical Concerns., Gerry W. Beyer
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
An estate planner may become a defendant in a case involving an estate he or she planned in two main ways. First, the attorney may have performed his or her services in a negligent manner potentially creating exposure to malpractice liability. Second, the attorney's conduct may have lapsed below ethically acceptable standards. This Article reviews the exposure an estate planner may have to malpractice liability with emphasis on Texas law and then focuses the reader's attention on ethical issues that may arise while preparing or executing the plan. The author hopes that by pointing out potentially troublesome areas, the reader …
Arbitration Clauses In Fee Retainer Agreements., Chrissy L. Schwennsen
Arbitration Clauses In Fee Retainer Agreements., Chrissy L. Schwennsen
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Due to the variety of approaches jurisdictions employ when determining the legal ramifications of arbitration clauses in fee retainer agreements, it’s best to include an explanation of the legal consequences of arbitration in the agreements. The attorney can, and should, fully explain the potential benefits of arbitration to clients. State courts take various viewpoints on the issue, and most stand contrary to the position of the American Bar Association (ABA) and state ethics committees on the subject. Consequently, attorneys must disclose truthful and accurate information regarding arbitration agreements when engaged in multijurisdictional practice in order to ensure protection from malpractice …
Guilt By Association: How “Standby Co-Counsel” Exposes Attorneys To Malicious Prosecution Liability., Colleen V. Lisowski
Guilt By Association: How “Standby Co-Counsel” Exposes Attorneys To Malicious Prosecution Liability., Colleen V. Lisowski
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Attorneys should not assume that lending their name to a case is a risk-free practice. The California appellate decision, Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Associates, answered the question of whether non-participating, standby co-counsel could be held liable for malicious prosecution by merely being listed as counsel of record. Cole established the clear message behind being aware of “co-counsel” risks. According to the court, co-counsel cannot escape liability if they failed to know enough about the case. By rejecting the “passive counsel” defense, Cole held that associated attorneys still have a duty to research the validity of a case even …
How An Obscure Tennessee Opinion Uncovers The Veil Of Legal Malpractice Between Asset-Protection Trusts And The Uniform Trust Code., Charles Epps Ipock
How An Obscure Tennessee Opinion Uncovers The Veil Of Legal Malpractice Between Asset-Protection Trusts And The Uniform Trust Code., Charles Epps Ipock
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
In the year 2000, the Uniform Law Commissioners approved the Uniform Trust Code (UTC). This was the first effort to provide states with an all-inclusive model for codifying their trust laws. Since then, at least twenty-three states adopted some, or most of the UTC. But this enactment did not come without controversy. Most of the controversies stem from provisions regarding asset-protection trusts. The net result of asset-protection trusts within the UTC essentially disposes of discretionary trusts by requiring them to contain spendthrift language. The undesirable effect of these provisions is that without a spendthrift clause any creditor can attach a …
Malpractice Liability Related To Foreign Outsourcing Of Legal Services., Vincent R. Johnson, Stephen C. Loomis
Malpractice Liability Related To Foreign Outsourcing Of Legal Services., Vincent R. Johnson, Stephen C. Loomis
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
The outsourcing of client-related tasks to service providers in other countries is likely to generate malpractice claims against American law firms. This Article discusses the wide range of theories under which an outsourcing American law firm may be liable for its own negligence or for the actions of outsourcing providers. These theories include negligence by the outsourcing law firm, vicarious liability for the conduct of firm principals and employees, vicarious liability for the conduct of independent contractors, and vicarious liability for the conduct of business partners.
The Roles Of Attorneys As Courtroom Experts: Revisiting The Conventional Limitations And Their Exceptions., David S. Caudill
The Roles Of Attorneys As Courtroom Experts: Revisiting The Conventional Limitations And Their Exceptions., David S. Caudill
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
This Article examines whether attorneys should be allowed to testify as legal experts, especially in the legal malpractice context. This Article starts by addressing the unclear distinction between questions of law and fact and reviews several recent cases that prohibited expert legal testimony. Next, this Article addresses some general exceptions to the prohibition against expert legal testimony, such as questions of complex and uncertain law. Finally, this Article examines the use of legal experts in legal malpractice cases.
Shifting The Burden Of Proof On Causation In Legal Malpractice Actions., Jeffrie D. Boysen
Shifting The Burden Of Proof On Causation In Legal Malpractice Actions., Jeffrie D. Boysen
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Legal malpractice suits, like any negligence claim, require the plaintiff to meet all of the elements of the malpractice claim. Texas malpractice claims are based on professional negligence. In Texas, the elements a plaintiff must prove in a legal malpractice claim are: "(1) the attorney owed the plaintiff a duty; (2) the attorney breached that duty; (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries; and (4) damages occurred." Most jurisdictions, including Texas, place the burden on the plaintiff to meet all elements of the claim, including causation. However, a significant minority of jurisdictions allow the burden to shift to the …