Legal Profession Blog reports this dismissed legal malpractice case.  Before reading, please see the last paragraph in which the court holds that there still is a remedy available.

"The North Carolina Court of Appeal today held that a claim of legal malpractice was barred by the statute of repose against a lawyer who had dismissed…

We reported on this case, and its little known term, Prothonotary last month.  Now the Times Leader reports: "Luzerne County Prothonotary Jill Moran has once again entered a $3.4 million judgment against a law firm in a hotly contested legal malpractice case that included allegations of bias against Judge Mark Ciavarella.

Moran on…

Plaintiff is injured at work and sues the third-party.  Plaintiff asks attorney whether she may sue her employer.  The answer is "No", isn’t it?  After all, one may not sue one’s employer, correct?

In a fine example of how much investigation may be necessary, Thompson v Seligman
2008 NY Slip Op 06496 Decided on July…

Reading this case, in which there is an ancillary legal malpractice case, reminded us of the ubiquitousnature of legal malpractice.  This case, ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs, – against – STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.07 Civ. 11196 (SAS);  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK  2008 U.S. Dist.

We often remark that legal malpractice may be found everywhere, and in many an unusual circumstance.  The "Big Dig?"  Sure.  Here is a story from NY Lawyer about a whistle blower whose case was overlooked:

"A would-be whistle blower is suing Washington-based firm Phillips & Cohen in the U.S. Court for the District of Massachusetts for…

Matrimonial law is rife with questions of legal malpractice.  As in most spheres of the law, settlements take place in the majority of cases.  The general rule in legal malpractice is that one may sue the attorney after a settlement if the settlement was "effectively compelled" by the actions of the attorney.  Here is a case which seem to have arisen after the attorney sued for fees.Steven L. Levitt & Assoc., P.C. v Balkin ;2008 NY Slip Op 06640 Decided on August 19, 2008 Appellate Division, Second Department .
 

"The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the motion of the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant and the additional counterclaim defendant (hereinafter together the respondents) which was for summary judgment dismissing the appellants’ first counterclaim alleging legal malpractice, based upon allegations that the respondents misrepresented the scope of the oral stipulation of settlement in the related civil action, and that the settlement of the related civil action was not knowingly and voluntarily made. The respondents made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof, in the form of the transcript of the aforementioned oral stipulation (see Pacella v Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, 14 AD3d 545; Malarkey v Piel, 7 AD3d 681; Laruccia v Forchelli, Curto, Schwartz, Mineo, Carlino & Cohn, 295 AD2d 321). In response, the appellants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether or not they in fact voluntarily and knowingly entered into the terms of the stipulation, specifically with respect to Ronald’s receipt of a credit in the sum of only $500,000, rather than in the sum of $937,000, from Karen’s share of her equitable distribution award. The appellants raised a triable issue of fact by showing that Ronald, in response to a question posed by the court during the proceeding in which the stipulation was placed on the record, changed his response from "no" to "yes," when asked by the court if he understood that it would "not entertain any setting aside of the [settlement] without a showing of extreme circumstances." Ronald explained, in an affidavit, that he changed his answer at the explicit instruction of his attorney, Steven L. Levitt, the plaintiff’s principal. This change in his answer was allegedly based upon statements in the record that the settlement of the related civil action would "be effective as of the date of execution of the documents," and not the date of the court appearance. Ronald averred that he understood that "[t]he formal stipulation of settlement" would reflect his attorney’s representation to him that the misstated sum of $500,000 was to be corrected to $937,000, that the correction would be worked out when the stipulation was put on paper, and that "[i]t would all be fixed’ later."

Continue Reading Legal Malpractice and Compelled Settlements

Forget about the Kentucky statute of limitations issue [although the discovery v. mistake date which starts the statute running is important here in NY].  Focus on the bad luck and the series of mistakes which take place in this poor plaintiff’s case discussed in the Kentucky Court Report:

"Lane appeals TC’s grant of summary judgment to…

Legal malpractice sometimes seems to be the language franca in law news. It can show up in any setting.  Here is a most unusual story from Law.com [link  unavailable]:

"A legal malpractice lawsuit against Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz stemming from a case involving a 6-ton marble sculpture of Jesus Christ’s face may…