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

Susan Cartier-Liebel’s Solo Law Blog puts this argument forward:  mandatory legal malpractice insurance is unnecessary, because it would not benefit clients, only subject attorneys to sky-high premiums. 

She writes: "Huh? What I can tell you is this: forcing lawyers to purchase malpractice insurance for this purpose would itself be a crime. It’s called extortion……

And the ones who will be harmed the most are solo and small firm practitioners who already struggle under the weight of malpractice insurance premiums. "

Hinshaw reports this case:

Client may not recover fees paid to criminal defense attorney whose representation was ineffective in part 

"The Vermont Supreme Court has held that a client is not entitled to assert a breach of contract action against a criminal defense attorney to recover fees paid for ineffective representation where at least some of the representation involved the provision of valuable services. Plaintiff, a client who was charged with federal crimes, retained defendant attorney to defend the charges. The attorney performed a substantial amount of work investigating the case and preparing for trial. The client was found guilty on all six charges and sentenced to prison. The conviction was upheld on appeal but the case was remanded for recalculation of the sentence. An increased sentence resulted, and it was affirmed on appeal. The client sought postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel due to the attorney’s failure to object to a jury charge. A federal district court dismissed the complaint, but a circuit court ruled that the jury charge on a reasonable doubt was improper. The circuit court remanded for a determination of whether counsel’s representation was ineffective.

On remand, the district court found that counsel’s representation was ineffective due to his failure to object to the improper jury instruction on reasonable doubt. A new trial was granted. The client pled guilty to one count and was sentenced to the 87 months he had already served.

The client then sued the attorney alleging claims for both legal malpractice and breach of contract. The contract claim sought to obtain return of the fees plaintiff had paid to defendant for preparing the case for trial and for trying the case. The trial court granted summary judgment for the attorney on the malpractice claim, ruling that a client must establish his actual innocence of the criminal charges to be entitled to recover for malpractice. The trial court denied summary judgment on the contract claim and found for the attorney on it. The trial court held that the client could not recover the attorneys’ fees he paid the attorney under a breach of contract theory because such a claim was in reality a malpractice claim and so required the client to establish his actual innocence. As the client could not establish his actual innocence because he pled guilty to one of the charges, the trial court ruled he could not establish proximate cause. The Supreme Court affirmed but for different reasons."