Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Proof Of Exoneration In Legal Malpractice Cases: The Peeler Doctrine And Its Limits In Texas And Beyond., John G. Browning, Lindsey Rames
Proof Of Exoneration In Legal Malpractice Cases: The Peeler Doctrine And Its Limits In Texas And Beyond., John G. Browning, Lindsey Rames
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
This article examines the requirements of "actual innocence" or exoneration as a prerequisite for bringing a claim of legal malpractice against a criminal defense attorney. It analyzes the public policy underpinnings and differing approaches taken in those jurisdictions that have adopted an "actual innocence" requirement. To illustrate the way in which this comparatively recent phenomenon has developed, the Article views the exoneration doctrine through the prism of Texas law, analyzing the doctrine's emergence in Peeler v. Hughes & Luce and discussing how it has expanded over the years. Yet even as this "actual innocence" doctrine has expanded in Texas, recent …
Controversial Defenses To Legal Malpractice Claims: Are Attorney-Experts Being Asked To Be Advocates?, David S. Caudill
Controversial Defenses To Legal Malpractice Claims: Are Attorney-Experts Being Asked To Be Advocates?, David S. Caudill
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Attorney-experts in legal malpractice litigation are like many other experts. Although easily distinguishable from experts offering science based testimony, attorney expertise is similar to that of witnesses offering experience-based testimony, and very much like the expertise of a physician in a medical malpractice case. An attorney-expert is, however, somewhat unique among experts in terms of the type of expertise offered, the inherent risk that the expert's testimony will invade the province of the judge or jury, and, I believe, the risk of over-testifying. First, there is a problem of defining the attorney-expert's "expertise" to ensure that the expert is not …
Is Litigation Counsel Who Also Engages In Competitive Decision-Making Wrong For The Part?, David Hricik
Is Litigation Counsel Who Also Engages In Competitive Decision-Making Wrong For The Part?, David Hricik
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
In-house counsel wear different hats, and are often involved in business decisions regarding products, marketing, and other strategic issues. It was in this context that courts began to adopt protective orders that precluded in-house counsel who provided their clients advice with “competitive decision-making” from having access to information from a competitor disclosed in discovery. Prosecution bars present numerous issues for courts and counsel. It may be that because of prosecution counsel’s knowledge of the technology that her service as trial counsel would lead to cost savings and other benefits to her client. However, due to the myriad problems that arise …
“Payability” As The Logical Corollary To “Collectibility” In Legal Malpractice, Daniel D. Tostrud
“Payability” As The Logical Corollary To “Collectibility” In Legal Malpractice, Daniel D. Tostrud
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
The collectibility requirement as part of the legal malpractice plaintiff’s affirmative case is well-established and regarded by most courts as a critical part of the plaintiff’s proof of proximate causation. Conversely, where the legal malpractice plaintiff was the defendant in the underlying lawsuit, to be successful in the malpractice suit, the plaintiff must prove that it had a meritorious defense that would have made a difference to the outcome of the case had the lawyer properly asserted and pursued the defense. Prompted by the conflicting opinions of two federal courts on this issue, courts have begun to discuss whether the …