Its a horrible story.  A respected person,  in this case a judge, convicted of rape, reversed and exonorated on appeal now sues for legal malpractice.  Forgetting the technical issues of arbitration or trial of the legal malpractice case,  how terrible a situation is this?

Here is the nightmare:  you have a good case against an international hotel corporation for lack of security, and you have a badly injured client.  Do you take the case or refer it to a law firm that has done this type of work before?  As many attorneys know, sadly, trying to sue Club Med requires learning the actual names of  both the local and US corporations.  Here, in this case  plaintiff’s attorney missed several Hilton corporations and now has a problem.

"A Manhattan attorney’s confusion about the proper parties to sue did not justify filing a vicarious liability claim four months beyond the statute of limitations, a federal judge has held.

However, Southern District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum in Chrobak v. Hilton Group, 06 Civ. 1916, allowed to proceed a negligent supervision allegation filed by a woman who claimed that she was raped by a security guard at the hotel where she was vacationing. Mr. Manchanda, an attorney with the Manchanda Law Offices in Manhattan, said in court papers that though the parties were not named in the original complaint they should have known that, but for a "mistake," they would have been named.

Judge Cedarbaum said this argument was "unavailing."

Here, in acase reported from Texas by James (Sandy) McCorquodale we read of a creditor’s committee which wants the court to disqualify Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP from representing the bankrupt, alleging that they misfiled, filed late, and lost assets for the estate.  For now, the court has refused to disqualify the firm. In re Specialty Restaurant Group, LLC, No. 07-30779-HDH-11 (N.D. Tex. April 24, 2007). Ruling on Creditor’s Application to Disqualify Debtor’s Attorneys.

Here is an article on the changes to General Obligations Law section 15-108 by Patrick D. Bonner, Jr.

"Section 15-108 of the New York General Obligations Law (GOL) is a statute near and dear to any practitioner defending personal injury or product liability lawsuits in New York. The statute establishes the rules for apportionment of damages and contribution claims among joint tortfeasors in the situation where one defendant in a multidefendant lawsuit has settled prior to trial.

Recently, the New York State Legislature enacted an important amendment to GOL §15-108,1 effective July 4, 2007, that potentially may impact the way these cases are defended. The amendment – which adds a subsection (d) to §15-108 – removes from the scope of the statute (1) releases and covenants for less than one dollar; (2) releases and covenants that fail to "completely or substantially" terminate the dispute; and (3) such releases or covenants provided subsequent to the entry of judgment.

This article examines the legal and practical changes the amendment will have on the operation of §15-108 in connection with the defense and potential settlement of personal injury cases in New York. More specifically, the article discusses how the new amendment has the practical effect of shifting the burden to defendants, especially those with deep pockets, with regard to the collection of money judgments against released tortfeasors, as well as some of the unintended pitfalls that the amendment may create for defense counsel. "

Its bad enough to make mistakes, worse to make them while representing clients, and even worse when it comes in a legal malpractice case.  Here is a case from Texas where the attorney lost a motion for summary judgment because he did not submit an expert affidavit on time.

Sprowl v. Dooley, No. 05-06-00359-CV (Tex. App.–Dallas May 8, 2007

"Sprowl had hired the law firm of Dooley & Rucker to pursue a defamation case; she later filing a malpractice claim against the law firm of Marshal Dooley and Michael Scott for negligence, fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).

The defendants moved for summary judgment. Sprowl failed to timely file an expert’s affidavit addressing the standard of care of a reasonably prudent attorney and the alleged causal link between any breach of the duties by her attorney and her claimed injuries. The associate judge granted the summary judgment.

Sprowl appealed the decision to the district court, which heard arguments on December 12, 2005. Three days later, Sprowl filed an expert affidavit of Charles McGarry to support her legal malpractice claims. In February 2006, the district court entered a final judgment, which affirmed the associate judge’s ruling.

The State Bar Association of North Dakota has proposed a new rule that would require that members of its bar file an annual statement that confirms that the attorney has private clients and, if so, whether the attorney has or intends to obtain malpractice insurance. The North Dakota Supreme Court has put the proposed rule out for comments through September 12

Legal malpractice case is brought and settled.  Now, after " a legal malpractice suit against Dallas securities attorney Phillip W. Offill Jr. and his former firm settled, the parties involved seemed happy, but that satisfaction was short-lived. Now a Dallas firm that represented plaintiff Consolidated Sports Media Group in that legal malpractice case has filed its own suit against CSMG, its co-counsel and others, alleging it was cut out of the deal.

But the new suit brought by Nowak & Stauch raises a separate issue: whether it discloses too much information surrounding the confidential settlement CSMG and other plaintiffs reached in the legal malpractice case. "

Here is a news release which tells us precious little about the legal malpractice case.  Would a US newspaper have run this article without telling who the law firm which paid $ 19 million was?

"Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho Ltd. <6335> said Friday it will receive 19 million dollars to settle its dispute with a U.S. law firm over alleged legal malpractice.

The Japanese newspaper rotary press maker declined to name the law firm or give details of the malpractice, citing a nondisclosure agreement.

Tokyo Kikai revised up its group net profit estimate to 2.2 billion yen from 1.1 billion yen for the year to March 2008.

Tokyo Kikai had been seeking damages payments from the law firm blaming it for the loss of a U.S. antidumping suit that led the Japanese company to pay 4,480 million yen in damages to U.S. printing maker Goss International Corp. "