Either this person is always</strong> in the wrong place, or there may be something to all of these accusations. This article about a Virginia attorneys tells us that he lost his “license as a broker on the New York Stock Exchange over allegations of forgery and misappropriation of a client’s money”, and was the subject of a legal malpractice law suit from a client who said he took her money and failed to file her case. Now he is indicted on a charge of forging a judge’s signature.

Here is a Front page “In Brief” story from the New York Law Journal: Attorney is suspended after he compounded what appears to be a rather common error. Client wanted to sue the State Board of Higher Education, probably for a slip and fall case on a campus. Attorney was required to file a notice of claim with the Attorney General’s office pursuant to Agency law. He didn’t. That was bad enough for him to “withdraw” his client’s case, probably to avoid an assessment of costs. Outcome? Attorney suspended, client without a remedy. Legal malpractice?

This case, from the Court of Appeals, appears to affect only matters in the Court of Claims. However, the question of the rate of interest to be applied to post-verdict and post-judgment awards implicates the entire spectrum of legal practice. Query: will there be a new requirement to bring in an economist to prove how much interest might have been obtained in an underlying matter to a legal malpractice case? Details.

Pecan cracking is big business, and this patent legal malpractice, which just recently ended in a $5.8 million verdict demonstrates the reach of legal advice and its potential liability. In Columbia, SC Frank Robertson was awarded $5.5 Million for bad legal advice, which he received from Nexsen, Pruet, Adams, Kleemeier. For the details.

Legal malpractice is the decendent of medical malpractice. This lineage is demonstrated in continued representation, in analysis of “standards” of care, and in many other fashions.

A very interesting article appears today in the NYLJ by Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier discusses Hinlicky v. Dreyfus _NY3d_, reported in the NYLJ on 5/3/06.

This Court of Appeals case holds, for the first time that a published clinical practice guideline may be used as evidence in a medical malpractice case. True, the use is limited, is still subject to hearsay exclusion [may not be offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but simply as demonstrative evidence], but this is a big decision.

Obvious parallels to Legal Malpractice exist. Firms, agencies and public associations all have written materials for their attorneys. Might these particular documents now be admissible under the Hinlicky doctrine? Stay tuned.