Here is a PLI web seminar on how to pick the right legal malpractice insurance.  The Seminar is a year or so old, but the faculty is stellar. Take a look.

Divorce and legal malpractice often intertwine.  Issues that regularly come up are insufficient discovery of the husband’s business or accounts, failure to ensure correct tax treatment of the marital estate. inequitable distribution based upon ill-considered stipulations, and faiures to present experts.  One site writing about divorce and litigation is Daniel Clement’s  New York Divorce Report, which today writes about a divorce/legal malpractice issue.

This field never sees publicity or bikini photos.  Right now, there is a confluence of presidential politics, scandal, presidential gambling sites, bikini photos, Hillary Clinton and legal malpractice.  Here is a second day of gossip.

"Call it a well orchestrated smear campaign or a case with its own merit, we’ll call it an important political betting strategy. Hillary Clinton currently sits as the favorite to be elected next US President in 2008. With even odds at Sportsbook.com (see website here), she’d probably be a bigger favorite if not for the fact that there is stiff competition breathing down her throat (specifically, Barrack Obama and a few dark horses that could gain steam down the road.

But those opposed to Clinton cite a possible wrench thrown in her campaign hopes.

"There is an unprecedented situation of a Presidential candidate’s campaign being placed in the hands of a three judge panel reviewing evidence of ******* conduct," claim those opposed to Clinton’s Presidential run.

The opposition is strong and – regardless of what transpires – could dramatically affect odds of Mrs. Clinton becoming the next US President.

Peter Paul – who in 2000, became central to a campaign fund-raising scandal involving Senator Hillary Clinton – has filed suit against his former legal counsel Judicial Watch, and its current president Tom Fitton, and directors Paul Orfanedes and Chris Farrell, over fundraising abuses, legal malpractice, and professional ethics, false advertising, as well as copyright infringement.

Legal Malpractice is family to its cousin, Medical Malpractice.  In either situation, a person has put faith in a professional, asking that a threatening problem be solved.  It matters little to the client/patient whether the situation is an operation or a trial.  in either, the problem is overwhelming and threatening.  What happens when something goes wrong.

There are financial considerations, but equally as important is the anger which comes from believing that you’ve been let down.  Here, at the crux, is where an apology might help.  Dr. Emily Senay, of CBS reports on medical malpractice.  It is equally applicable to legal malpractice:

"It’s not greed that drives most people to file medical malpractice lawsuits," Wojcieszak said. "It’s anger. They get — people get angry when they think there’s a cover-up."

Wojcieszak’s anger turned into action. He created the Sorry Works Coalition with a simple idea: Reduce malpractice lawsuits by telling patients the truth followed by an apology.

"Basically, what it is is we’re advocating good customer service. Without apology and disclosure, there can be no patients’ safety because as long as you’re coving up and denying, you’re never gonna learn," Wojcieszak said.

According to healthcare litigation attorney Jim Saxton even lawyers say empathy works.

"That ‘I’m sorry’ done the right way with the right process can, number one, derail a lawsuit," Saxton said.

It could also reduce costs. After the University of Michigan health system changed its medical error policy on malpractice cases, legal fees per case were more than cut in half. The legal climate is slowly changing. Twenty-nine states now have laws that protect doctors from lawsuits when they say they’re sorry.

It was the apology that opened the door for Kenney the patient and Van Pelt the doctor. "

Anthony Lin of the NYLJ reports today that the Weil Gotshal Legal Malpractice case has ended.

"A Texas bankruptcy judge has thrown out a suit against Weil, Gotshal & Manges by a former client who had accused the New York law firm of steering it into a "disastrous" Chapter 11 filing.

The National Benevolent Association, the social services arm of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), filed for bankruptcy in 2004, becoming one of the largest non-profit organizations to have ever done so. The St. Louis, Mo.-based group shrank dramatically as a result of the bankruptcy, and it claimed in its September 2005 suit against Weil Gotshal that the firm should have explored less disruptive alternatives. The group had sought $40 million in damages.

But in granting summary judgment to the law firm in a decision issued Tuesday, Chief Judge Ronald B. King of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas said that the association’s contentions constituted a collateral attack on previous court orders and were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The judge noted in particular that the court had previously issued orders confirming the association’s reorganization plan and authorizing the sale of many of the group’s properties. There had already been ample opportunity to litigate the issues raised in the suit against Weil Gotshal, he ruled.

The NYLJ article.

The ABA is holding a spring Legal Malpractice Convention. 

The Spring 2007 National Legal Malpractice Conference  will be held on April 25-27, 2007 -in Washington, DC

A recent new rule (22 NYCRR 202.7) regulates  ex parte temporary restraining order and must be based upon a showing of significant prejudice.

Judges are barred from granting restraining orders unless a party demonstrates a significant reason why an adversary must not know of the application in advance. Absent significant prejudice to justify obtaining an ex parte order, the attorney’s must advise their adversaries of the time and place they will be asking for a restraining order. No definition of  advance notice is given,  It must be ‘sufficient’ to allow opposition.

Here is a legal malpractice case from a warm place.  In view of the 9 degree weather this morning, it makes for good reading.  From Day on Torts,[go there for all the links] this blog blurb:

"The Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled that two law firms who represented a party in a business dispute cannot be sued by the adversary party for intentional interference with contractual relations.

Plaintiff had a dispute with a business partner – the two were general partners of a partnership that ran a hotel. The defendant law firms represented the non-plaintiff partner. The dispute ended up in arbitration, and Plaintiff demanded to see certain books and records of the hotel partnership. The law firms took possession of those documents, and Plaintiff sued them for interfering with its right to access to the books and records. The law firms said, inter alia, that the suit was barred by the litigation privilege.

The Court did a nice review of the history of the litigation privilege and ruled that the lawyer’s conduct was protected by the privilege. The Court explained that the fact that the arbitration process was temporarily stayed at the time the dispute arose was immaterial.

The case is Kahala Royal Corporation v. Goodsill, Anderson, Quinn and Stiffil, Nos. 26669 and 26670 (Jan. 7, 2007). Read it here.

Like you, I have read a lot of appellate court opinions over the years but this one has a feature I have never seen before. Not only did each of the justices sign the opinion, but each of them signed it without the presence of the traditional signature line for each of the justices. I assume that is some sort of tradition of the Hawaii Supreme Court. I like it.