This article is from the subscription Law.Com.  "LOS ANGELES – A publicist who entered into a fee-sharing agreement at the insistence of a client failed to demonstrate how she was damaged by the failure of a law firm to notify her that it had previously represented the client, a California court held Feb. 4 in affirming dismissal of her unfair competition law (UCL) claims (Arlett Vereecke v. Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca, Fischer, Gilbert-Lurie, Stiffelman & Cook, LLP, et al., No. B189284, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 4; 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 739). Full story on lexis.com"

This reversal report is taken from "Judicial Reports" which has a unique listing of all appellate reversals. "CIVIL PROCEDURE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE: Justice Gonzalez gave another litigant way too much leeway in another case. She let Juan Garcia make numerous changes in his deposition testimony, even though Garcia failed to timely submit a statement of reasons for the errata sheets. In his deposition, he was explaining the circumstances that gave rise to a personal injury claim against his employer, who had supposedly given him a ladder with a missing rung. That claim had been dismissed and Garcia was now suing his lawyer, Tom Stickel, for allegedly botching the case. The unrevised deposition and affidavits were insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether Garcia’s underlying personal injury claim would have prevailed but for Stickel’s alleged legal malpractice, said the Appellate Division. So Gonzalez should have summarily dismissed the malpractice claim instead of giving Garcia a belated chance to fill the gaps in his story. Garcia v. Stickel (February 27) "

This is taken from the Law.Com subscription site.  "The statisticians and insurers are constantly whining and warning about the increase in legal malpractice cases, attorney Claude E. Ducloux writes. Even the most respected firms are being caught up in the malpractice web, as changes in laws and attitudes have emboldened clients to complain publicly, loudly and with litigation. But Ducloux says there are certain steps that can improve a lawyer’s chances of making it through those minefields — and they’re not expensive or difficult.

The case in subscription form

"Matter of Gonzalez v. Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, 114877-2006
Decided: February 9, 2007

Justice Carol Robinson Edmead

NEW YORK COUNTY
Supreme Court

"There are two separate and distinct classes of liens available to attorneys at law: (1) a general common-law or retaining lien on all property, including papers, books, documents, money or securities, belonging to the attorney’s client which came into the attorney’s possession in the course of the professional employment, and (2) a limited statutory lien on a specific fund or judgment on a cause of action or counterclaim, also known as a charging lien7 (In re Sebring, 238 AD 281 [4th Dept 1933]; In re Reiser, 137 AD 177 [1910]).

Here, the Law Firm’s application to quash the Subpoenas at issue is premised upon the ground that it has a retaining lien on the subject documents.

"The purpose of an attorney’s retaining lien involve inconvenience to the client" (Sorin v. Shahmoon Indus., Inc., 20 Misc 2d 149, 191 NYS2d 14 [Sup Ct, New York County 1959]). "The function of the lien is essentially one of compulsion-its aim being to assure payment of the fee due the attorney for services rendered" (Sorin v. Shahmoon Indus., Inc., 20 Misc 2d 149, supra]). Thus, the purpose of the retaining lien is to compel payment (Singer v. Four Corner Serv. Station, 105 NYS2d 77 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1951]), or secure payment of the reasonable value of the services which he or she "had rendered as attorney in the action and or for all services rendered for the client" (see Goldman v. Rafel Estates, Inc., 269 AD 647 [1st Dept 1945]). The retaining lien continues until the attorney’s charges for all services which he or she has performed for the client have been paid, "not only those pertaining to matters relating to the papers or property in his hand at the time, but also for any balance due for other professional services" (In re Sebring, 238 AD 281, supra) (emphasis added). "

Anthony Lin in the NYLJ reports today that a Surrogate has recused himself over whether an attorney appearing before him made significant campaign contributions,  This appears to be happening more often, and when tied in with Clarence Norman style issues [insider attorneys, connections between judges and election payments] may well become a legal malpractice issue when a case goes sour.

"Suffolk County Surrogate John M. Czygier Jr. has removed himself from a case after receiving a recusal motion claiming that more than $29,000 in contributions from a lawyer appearing before him and the lawyer’s firm raised questions about the judge’s impartiality.

Rather than ruling on the merits, Surrogate Czygier (See Profile) stepped down because he would have had to review contribution records from his 2001 campaign to make a decision.

Under the state’s Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, the surrogate wrote, he "is prohibited" from viewing those records, he concluded in Matter of Michiel, 527 A 2005. "

Here is a [subscription only] blurb from the NJLJ, which mirrors NY.  Fail to advise the carrier of  a potential claim, and you may not have coverage.  "An applicant for legal malpractice insurance who fails to disclose known facts that could lead to a malpractice claim, even if no claim has been filed, may be denied coverage as a matter of law, the New Jersey Supreme Court says."

For a new and interesting take on criminal law, look at Simple Justice.  This is a new blog on Criminal law by an extremely experienced practitioner, Scott Greenfield.

Here is a short but interesting list of things to do to avoid lawsuits.

"Eight steps to safeguard your business

Professional contract agreements. 

Documentation and tracking changes.

Checking work. 

Communications with the client.

Early recognition of potential disputes.

Early recognition of potential disputes.

Meeting budgets

Costs.

Time.

Fees and charges