OK, so here is the story.  Doctor and family is in a car crash.  Doctor and family successfully sue for $10 million.  However, he now sues his attorney because it all sort of  got frittered away.  There was the limit on the other car’s coverage, there were the trust deposits for the kids, there was the bad faith litigation.  Analysis?  The attorney did a strong job at trial, and a poor job at communicating the complexities of trial and judgment law.  Now comes the legal malpractice litigation.  The story.

We have never heard of this before, but apparently its a movement.  Unbundled legal services are proceeding under a Mass program where an attorney represents a client in only one appearance, or for a small, singular issue, without taking over representation as a whole.  We have reservations about what happens when the case goes sour.  The article.

The "Anti-Divorce’" attorney has posted a site which trolls for legal malpractice cases.  His pitch?  He sues attorneys who settle divorce cases without the client’s permission, when the client really wants to stay married.  Don’t clients have to allocute to the settlement in open court?  Anyway, the site.

This Legal Profession Blog gives the latest update on mandatory legal malpractice and the status of its reqirement across the USA.  The blog blurb.

Here is an example of how attorney fee cases lead to a plethora of work, trouble, litigation, and a very slim chnace of making any money.  Attorney represents client in California case.  Client does not pay $ 4000 in legal fees.  Attorney sues client for $ 4000.  Client has a NY attorney friend, who will defend him, but needs to be admitted pro haec vice. Why the client needed a NY attorney to come to California is unclear.  Client will not be deposed until NY attorney comes to California, and his case is dismissed.  Attorney sues for malicious prosecution, and client counters with an anti-SLAPP suit, which here is undefined.  SLAPP is a California statute which allows dismissal of retalitory lawsuits.

Now clients loses the anti-SLAPP.  How much work and risk has gone on for this original $ 4000?  Read the article.

Here is a story about a Georgia attorney who has long specialized in legal malpractice litigation, both plaintiff’s and defendant’s.  Here is Frank Beltran’s story.

Here is a fairly long discussion of the statute of limitations in legal malpractice in Alabama. They recognize the interesting question of whether the S/L starts to run before damage occures.  For example, what if there is a mistake in creation of a will, but the will is not yet probated?  Other examples are where there are problems in a deed or easement, but the house has not yet been re-sold.  In any event, here is a well written discussion.

Here is an interesting blog blurb from a Florida Torts publication: "The Week in Torts"

"Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D2623 (Fla. 2d DCA October 20, 2006):

In this legal malpractice case, the court reminded us that while the waiver of the attorney client and work product privileges is not favored in Florida, all personal privileges may be waived by the client. It then reminded us of the “at issue” doctrine, which states that when a party has filed a claim based upon a matter ordinarily privilege, the proof of which will necessarily require that the privileged matter be offered into evidence, the person waives his or her right to insist in pre-trial discovery that the matter is privileged. Still, the party did not waive the attorney client privilege merely by bringing or defending a lawsuit. Waiver occurs when a party raises a claim that will necessarily require proof by way of a privileged communication. Thus, for waiver to occur under the “at issue” doctrine, the proponent of a privilege must make a claim or raise a defense based upon the privileged matter, and the proponent must necessarily use the privileged information in order to establish its claim or defense.

The court also discussed the “selective disclosure” doctrine which states that a party may not insist upon the protection of the privilege for damaging communications while disclosing other selected communications that are self-serving. Ultimately, this court found the order compelling disclosure of the disputed documents departed from the essential requirements of law. "