My legal malpractice insurance questionaire asks me how I calendar. Here is an article from Seattle WA which says that 23.5% of all malpractice cases arise from faulty calendaring. The article goes on to discuss older attorneys and paper calendaring. His conclusion? “In the modern law office, almost all calendaring is done electronically. However, many older practitioners will rely on the less the less reliable form of paper calendaring. With increasingly complicated case schedules, paper calendaring is in and of itself probably a breach of the standard of care”

The Case: employment discrimination in a restaurant. The Claim: employee raped by employer. The outcome: a $ 400,000 sanction against her attorneys, set by district court Judge. Magistrate who heard the evidence in support of sanction recommended against sanction. Judge simply disregarded the recommendation. Appellate Court: Judge should have re-heard testimony before simply disregarding the magistrate. Details.

These new rules do not have a direct bearing on legal malpractice, nor do they arise from a legal malpractice case, but they do have the potential to pop up in a legal malpracitce case some months from now. The gist of new rules? Motions with a request for a TRO require specified statements by the maker, and will fail without those statements. The same court notes also contain the new deposition and insurance company settlement rules. Rules.

As we have written many times, legal malpractice claims medical malpractice as its father. Here is an article from the master practitioners in Medical Malpractice, Tom Moore and Matthey Gaier, writing about how to investigate and litigate a case where the physical condition of the doctor is relavant. The physical condition [medication, physical condition, psychological condition] of a defendant attorney may well be relavant. Here, from the NYLJ, is their article on how to discover these important facts. Article.