Here is a collection of writings from the St. Mary’s Law School 5th Annual Symposium on Legal Malpratice. To get it.

This attorney went from bad to worse. He got a nice case of a defective chair with physical injury. He let the statute of limitations run. He was sued, and settled the legal malpractice case against him. Then he got cought forging a judge’s signature on a document which would have release a lien on his assets. Now he is indicted. Details.

Here is another legal malpractice case for Vinson & Elkins. This legal malpractice case arises from their handling of San Diego’s investigatation of “the city’s financial disclosure practices and its pension system, and to represent the city before the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was investigating the city.

Vinson & Elkins released its report in September 2004, and in 2005, its contract was terminated after the company had been paid $6.2 million for its work.”

On July 26, City Attorney Michael Aguirre, in his latest interim report, charged that the company “repeatedly, systematically and knowingly” disregarded the obligations stated in its contract with the city. Details.

A former partner became a judge, and the case was sealed. Now a local Hawaii newspaper moves to have it opened, and everyone suddenly says, “sure!” Details.

Depositions have always been the first battlefield of litigation. They served as traininggrounds for new litigators, and wre the scene of many an argument over whether the attorney was “coaching” his witness, obtruding into the questioning, making good or frivolous objections, some of which were remedied by calls to chambers. More substantive issues such as the scope of inquiry under Carvalho came up there too. Now, the landscape has changed in a seismic shift. As of 10/1/06 everything is different. Objections on relevance no longer permissible, speaking objections no longer permissible, reasons for objections now must be given. It’s all changed! See the NYLJ article by Daniel Wise for details.

Article 78 proceedings have the shortest statute of limitations in New York. Many proceedings are dismissed for this reason. Here is an article from the NYLJ on the issue which argues for a bright line rule, and cautions on the trap. Details.

Legal Malpractice following medical malpractice. It’s the hardest litigation in existance. Not only do you have to win the legal malpractice case by showing deviations of the attorney “but for” which plaintiff would have won, you must win the underlying medical malpractice case, again! Nevermind that the first attorney lost it. Now there is a website listing clients who did not prevail in medical malpractice. The point? Doctors may want to avoid these patients. In the website, it is suggested that these clients sue their attorney. Details.

Texas Law blog starts a series on legal malpractice. Here is the blog.