Moving boldly where no legal malpractice warning has been heard before, this blog blurb argues that failure to have adequate e-discovery professionals may constitute legal malpractice. 

 "The ability to spot the cases when meta data may be recovered is an important skill for any practitioner. The more important skill, however, is the ability to know how to use the electronic discovery means once identified. It is wise to use an attorney experienced in electronic discovery and meta data mining when faced with such a case. “Because of their ubiquitous nature, documents stored in electronic form…should be specifically targeted by counsel in developing their discovery plans. Failing to do so may not only prejudice their case, but may also constitute malpractice.” CEB California Discovery Practice 3rd Ed Vol. 2, §8.24 p. 711 (1998). It is the duty of every advocate to have a sufficient level of knowledge regarding electronic discovery and meta data, or to at least associate with counsel who does. Failure to understand the importance and usefulness of meta data and electronic discovery in general may lead to undesirable consequences. "  The entireblurb.

The Texas Supreme Court has applied several arcane, and not easliy explanable rules to attorney fees.  In this particular case arising from bull semen sales, the applied rules are more fully expanded upon and fleshed out in this Law Com article.

 "Barker, the high court also for the first time applied to attorney fees the "presumptive harm" rule that it annunciated in 2000’s Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Casteel and subsequent cases. The court concluded in Barker that an appellate court will presume harm and must reverse the attorney fees awarded unless it can be reasonably certain that the jury’s fee award was not significantly affected by the error in the damages award. "

In a non-legal malpractice case, Federal Judge Sidney  H. Stein made rulings which inform the substantive basis for legal malpractice cases.  "But Southern District Judge Sidney H. Stein said in a Dec. 8 decision that a violation of the disciplinary rule proscribing noncompetes could not itself be the basis of a suit for damages.

The judge said New York law was clear that disciplinary rule violations could only be part of other claims, like breach-of-contract or legal malpractice. He distinguished Karas’ claim from other cases involving DR 2-108(A) in which defendant law firms withheld money contractually owed to plaintiff lawyers on the grounds that the latter had violated noncompete agreements. " The case.

A New York attorney was permitted to testify about the settlement value of plaintiff’s case, had it continued in New York.  The attorney, Kenneth Labarca, was allowed to testify that the case would have been among the 90% of cases which settle in NY, and that the value would have been between $95,000 and $ 350,000.  Here is the article.

Just to show you that the case is not over ’till [fill in a cliche here], this doctor, who already won a $ 8 Million verdict came back to grab another $ 180,000 from his attorney.  The attorney, who was successful in the underlying personal injury action, split ways with the doctor too soon.  Now, he has lost a legal malpractice case based upon the end of the relationship.  The article.

Here is a re-print in which the author lists judicial hell holes for litigants.  Interesting to this blog is the confluence between the Madison County, Illinois description and the many articles from the Madison Reporter we have reported in Legal Malpractice.  Is there a relationship?  Keep tuned.  The Hell Hole Blog.

This is a hot topic.  Disgorgement due to "for cause" termination, not amounting to legal malpractice is a brand new area to the field.  The Court of Appeals has enunciated a principal that if an attorney is terminated for cause, the attorney is due no compensation.  Here is a blurb from Hinshaw that tells of a case in which disgorgement was ordered after a conflict of interest analysis. The blurb