In this Lexology report from Hinshaw an attorney was covered by the initial insurance even after leaving the firm, even for work later performed:

"Kimberly A. Jolley, et al. v. John J. Marquess, et al., ___A.2d___, 2007 WL 1518114 (N.J.Super.A.D.)

Addressing a question of first impression, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court held that a malpractice insurance policy’s definition of “insured” – which included a former partner “while acting solely in a professional capacity on behalf of” the partner’s former firm – required the insurer to defend and indemnify for work the lawyer did both before and after he had left the firm. The decision has important things to say not only about the scope of malpractice coverage but also about the importance for attorneys and insurers alike of proper transfer of client matters when a lawyer leaves a firm. "

The State of California has rejected a proposal to require attorneys to disclose whether they carry legal malpractice insurance.  Here is the story:

"The State Bar Board of Governors yesterday rejected rules that would have required California attorneys to disclose to clients and to the State Bar if they do not have malpractice insurance, and would have mandated that the State Bar identify uninsured attorneys on its Web site.

Saying that requiring that such information be posted on the Internet was “over the top,” President Sheldon H. Sloan cast the tie-breaking vote against the proposal, which was defeated by a vote of nine to eight.

The proposal would have amended the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the California Rules of Court.

Board members William Gailey, Jeffrey L. Bleich, Matthew Butler, George Davis, Jeannine English, James N. Penrod, John E. Peterson and James Scharf voted in favor of the proposal. Laura N. Chick, John J. Dutton, Richard A. Frankel, Holly J. Fujie, Jo-Ann Grace, Howard Miller, Danni R. Murphy, and Carmen M. Ramirez voted against it.

Vigorous Debate

The board split on adoption of the proposal after debating the issue and hearing testimony from a number of supporters and opponents. Although the board agreed that everyone was in favor of client protection, individual members disagreed on whether the proposal, or a broad mandate requiring all attorneys to obtain insurance provided by companies at an affordable level, was the best manner in which to proceed.

Supporters of the proposal framed the issue as a matter of client protection, while opponents such as Dutton pointed to the lack of empirical evidence supporting a need for the proposal. "

We reported the story of an attorney who robbed a pharmacy three times in 11 minutes.  His story gets worse.

"An attorney accused of robbing a pharmacy three times in a span of a few minutes jumped head first from his fifth-floor hospital room Thursday, landing on the roof of a nearby two-story building.

Robert Behlen "vaulted himself" through a narrow window in his room and screamed as members of a sheriff’s office tactical team on tethers tried to reach him from an outdoor ledge, Oklahoma County Sheriff John Whetsel said.

"Obviously, he was intent on trying to commit suicide," Whetsel said. "We were very hopeful to a different resolution."

Whetsel said Behlen was verbal and conscious following the fall. But he was listed in critical condition Thursday evening to repair a fractured pelvis and dislocated hip, sheriff’s spokesman Mark Myers said. "

"They’re trying to find out what else is wrong with him. He’s taken a turn for the worse," Myers said.

We chanced across this story about Jesse James, his legal problems, and the proposed solution to being sued.  One Lawyer’s Showdown With Jesse James

"The thought of a showdown with notorious Wild West bank robber Jesse James conjures up images of six-shooters drawn on a dusty main street. But it appears that one brave Missouri lawyer sought recourse from James in a more lawyerly way, by taking him to court — and won. James elected not to appeal but, outlaw that he was, twice later tried to shoot the lawyer who beat him in court.

A modern-day Missouri lawyer, James P. Muehlberger of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, last month discovered documents detailing the litigation. His discovery and the story it reveals are reported this week in The Kansas City Star [via Bashman]. The timing of his discovery could not be better, given last week’s release of the Brad Pitt movie, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

As Star writer Brian Burnes recounts, Ford may have been a coward, but young lawyer Henry McDougal was anything but. The case stemmed from an 1869 bank robbery in Gallatin, Mo., in which two robbers shot and killed the cashier. As they made their getaway, one robber’s horse bolted, forcing the pair to escape on one horse. The horse they left behind was identified as belonging to James.

Outside town, the bank robbers encountered Daniel Smoote and forced him to hand over his horse. The smitten Smoote wanted to sue James, but could find no lawyer willing to take his case, until he met McDougal, then 25 and a lawyer for just a year. McDougal sued for attachment of the horse James left behind. Surprisingly, James retained a lawyer and responded with legal maneuvers of his own, asking the court to quash service of the complaint. After nearly two years of legal gun slinging, James refused to appear for trial and the court entered judgment for McDougal’s client.

That was not the end of the case for James. In 1871, he rode into Gallatin with the aim of shooting McDougal, but failed. A decade later, a second attempt to shoot McDougal was also linked to James. None of that hurt McDougal’s career — he went on to become president of the Kansas City and Missouri bar associations and to partner with the lawyer who founded Shook Hardy. Even in the Wild West, it seems, justice prevailed. "

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on September 26, 2007 at 12:09 PM |

The New York Law Journal reports that some of the hedge fund legal malpractice action against Akin Gump have been dismissed.

"A New York state judge has granted Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld’s motion to dismiss several claims filed against it by a former hedge fund client, but has permitted a fraud claim to go forward.

In February, James McBride and Kevin Larson, the principals behind the Veras series of funds, sued Akin Gump for $4.4 billion, claiming the firm advised them that the trading of mutual fund shares after the market close was a legal practice.

The funds, which had $1 billion in assets in 2003, were then investigated for "late trading" by the New York attorney general’s office and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Veras wound up paying more than $36 million in penalties before shutting down.

McBride and Larson each paid $750,000 and were barred from the industry. Their lawsuit had asserted 11 causes of action against Akin Gump, but Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Bernard Fried ruled Thursday in Veras v. Akin Gump that five of the causes of action, including negligence, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty, were duplicative of Veras’ legal malpractice claims.

The judge permitted Veras to proceed, however, with a claim that Akin Gump committed fraud by concealing conflicts "

The axiom is that the gears of the law grind thoroughly, but slowly.  Here is an article from the Madison Record which has asiduously followed the Lakin Group legal malpractice law suit.  Now, defendant’s attorney has to report his client’s address, so that Lakin can be served with a deposition notice.  He didn’t.  The Story: "Tom Lakin’s attorney doesn’t know where Tom Lakin lives.

Michael Nester of Belleville, defending Lakin in a legal malpractice suit, missed a Sept. 24 deadline to report Lakin’s address to Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder.

Nester had written Sept. 14 that upon information and belief, Lakin resided in Florida.

Nester asked Crowder for a 10 day extension to confirm Lakin’s residence, but 10 days later the mystery persisted."

We follow the new appellate decisions in the Case Prep Plus site.  Here is the full note on a case from this week entitled Harrison v Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr.    2007 NY Slip Op 06833
Decided on September 18, 2007 . Appellate Division, Second Department
:

"CIVIL PROCEDURE. CPLR 3126 NOTICE. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. In this medical malpractice action, granting of plaintiff’s motion to vacate prior order dismissing the complaint, which was based upon defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, is affirmed. CPLR 3126 requires either the court or defendant to serve plaintiff with a written notice to resume prosecution within 90 days and that failing to do so will serve as a basis for a motion to dismiss. Here, because defendant’s notice only demanded that plaintiff resume prosecution of her action, the Supreme Court was without authority to dismiss the action under CPLR 3126. Harrison v. Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center. [Editor’s comment: defense counsel might be subject to a legal malpractice claim should the case settle or result in a plaintiff’s verdict and judgment.]

We needed a graph to try to figure out who did what to whom in this case. Levy v Laing
2007 NY Slip Op 06765  Decided on September 18, 2007  Appellate Division, First Department

" In 1986, defendant Jeffrey Laing retained plaintiff John Corcos Levy, Esq., for a one-third contingency fee, to prosecute a legal malpractice action against the law firm of Bushin & Rosman (B & R) for B & R’s alleged negligence in an underlying personal injury action. In 1989, an order granting B & R’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice action was reversed by this Court (149 AD2d 351). In 1990, Laing substituted the law firm of Gandin, Schotsky & Rappaport (GSR) for Levy. Levy and GSR then entered into a letter agreement giving Levy a 30% share in GSR’s fee.

In 1993, the B & R legal malpractice action was marked off the calendar for Laing’s failure to appear at a pretrial conference. Four years later GSR attempted to file a note of issue but a second motion by B & R to dismiss the action, this time pursuant to CPLR 3404, was granted. We affirmed (255 AD2d 113 [1998], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 957 [1999]).

Thereafter, in 2000, Laing retained the services of Andrew MacAskill, Esq. to commence a second legal malpractice action, this one against GSR, whose actions and/or inactions during the four-year hiatus had resulted in the final dismissal of the malpractice action against B & R. In 2004, the action against GSR settled for $125,000.

Now, in this action, Levy, appearing pro se, sues former client Laing to recover $10,000 as the reasonable value of his services in the B & R action. He claims that after assisting Laing in the GSR malpractice action, he advised Laing of his position that he was entitled to compensation for the work he did prior to their parting and Laing’s retention of GSR. In response, Laing sent Levy $1000, which Levy rejected. "