Parents and children entered into a real estate sale of the family home from parents to children in order to save it from foreclosure. One attorney, who himself recognized the problem of representing both seller and buyer, did so nevertheless.
The big problem came to light years later when a "side deal" was unenforceable because of the statute of frauds. The question in this case is whether a regular or discovery statute of limitations applied. Here: the discovery statute. The case.
Politics or Discipline? Here is a story about a Toms River NJ councilman who is now facing legal malpractice and disciplinary trouble for allegedly "grossly neglecting a case." The Story.
Here is a reminder that new e-Discovery rules to into effect in Federal Lawsuits tomorrow. A full compilation of the rules is found at "Electronic Discovery Rules Takes Center Stage" by Judge shira A. Schiendlin in the NYLJ on Sept. 13, 2004.
Short comment: withdraw properly and there is no legal malpractice. Here is a case from California, commented on by the Appellate Law and Practice blog. Attorney correctly withdrew, hence no legal malpractice. The Comment.
Not satisfied with common law indemnifiation and respondeat superior, this case demonstrates that indemnification for defense of a legal malpractice case may be based upon state Labor laws. Here is the blurb.
Tampa now has a self-help law shop. What they sell is somewhat unclear, but it appears that they sell kits for wills, and other simple legal transactions. Previously, they tried to help with a dental malpractice, only to fall short and be fined. Will legal malpractice self-help kits be next? The article.
Here is a story about law firms being ever more careful about legal malpractice prevention, conflicts checks and looking to increase their coverage. The story.
Here is a blog blurb which tells us almost everything to know about legal malpractice in Massachusetts. The blurb
Here is a nice review of New York City Bar Ethics Opinion 2006-3, which discusses outsourcing. Take a look at footnote 3 in which refers to a letter to the editor arguing that any outsourcing is legal malpractice. The review.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP reports an Ohio Collectability case. Here, no reduction for uncollectability. Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Collectability in Underlying Case as Limit on Recovery in Legal Malpractice Action
Paterek v. Peterson & Ibold, 2006 WL 2337483 (Ohio App. 11 Dist. 2006)
In this 2-1 appellate court decision, the majority held that the trial court had improperly reduced a legal malpractice verdict resulting from a blown statute of limitations on the ground that the amount of the legal malpractice verdict exceeded what would have been collectible from the underlying tort defendant and his insurer.
Click on the link to view the full Alert or visit the following internet address:
http://www.hinshawlaw.com/knowledge/alert_detail.aspx?id=1013&type=5303
