Anthony Lin in the New York Law Journal reports that Supreme Court, New York has dismissed a legal malpractice suit based upon the Sophisticated Plaintiff doctrine. Where the Plaintiff is as well versed in some speciality as is the attorney, then the attorney will not be held to deviate from good practice when making decisions based upon that knowledge. Continue Reading Sophisticated Plaintiff defense in Legal Malpractice

Anthony E. Davis of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLPm is a well known practitioner in the Professional Responsibility field. He is the past president of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers, a columnist in the New York Law Journal and an expert witness.

He writes today on the question of retired attorneys in New York who certify that they are retired, usually in order to avoid paying bi-annual fees to the UCA. He notes that the decision to permit retired attorneys to use a professional letterhead creates potential legal malpractice problems. The column appears in today’s NYLJ.

Anthony Lin, who frequently reports on Legal Malpractice cases in New York, writes today in The New York Law Journal about a legal malpractice case arising from divorce which was dismissed. It appears that the legal malpractice was coupled with a divorce attorney fee case. The divorce firm, Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, PC represented the wife in a high profile divorce. Whether there was a settlement agreement reached over lunch at La Cote Basque, and a deviation by her attorney in failing to enforce the agreement was a central point in Justice Beeler’s decision. The wife was represented by Stuart J. Moskovitz, who called the decision “outrageous.” Attorney was represented by Philip Touitou Hinshaw & Clubertson, a firm that writes about legal malpractice and does defense work.

Here is an Illinois appellate case reported by the Illinois Legal Malpractice Blog arising from an action against General Motors where “the plaintiffs sued their former lawyers for malpractice, alleging that the lawyers were negligent when they failed to sue General Motors for strict liability of a manufacturing defect in a car the plaintiffs were in an accident in. After the defendants argued that proximate causation and damages elements could not be established because the plaintiffs’ successor lawyer successfully sued GM for strict liability the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, and on December 19, 2005, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed this ruling.” Continue Reading Illinois GM Legal Malpractice and Proximate Cause

Here’s an interesting report from Hinshaw & Culbertson, who write extensively about legal malpractice. It reports a Florida case in which a legal malpractice cause of action was transferred during a bankruptcy case. This report is similar to our 12/30/05 note on transfer of legal malpractice rights in Texas.

1. Menicucci Villa & Assoc., PLLC v. Pickett, 2004-02339 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2005 NY Slip Op 10103; December 27, 2005. AD affirms CPLR 3211[a][7] dismissal for attorney.

2. Nationwide Assoc., Inc. v. Epstein, 2004-06060 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2005 NY Slip Op 10105. Case dismissed because plaintiff failed to list this cause of action in bankruptcy petition or schedule. Cause of action is now trustee’s, not plaintiff’s.

Here’s a legal malpractice case from Indiana concerning valuation of a marital estate. Wife sued for legal malpractice after the divorce alleging that the attorneys had failed to determine her husband’s true financial holdings. Details from Valuation Issues in Indiana Blog.

Physician’s Personal Goodwill Not A Marital Asset
Gilman v. Hohman, 725 N.E.2d 425 (Ind.Ct.App. March 8, 2000)

A former client brought legal malpractice action against attorneys who had represented her in marital dissolution, alleging that attorneys had committed malpractice by failing to value goodwill of client’s former husband in his medical practice when preparing marital property settlement agreement. The Court of Appeals held that husband, who was employed as a salaried staff member physician of a medical clinic in which he held no ownership interest, and who was subject to a covenant not to compete, had no goodwill except that due to his own personal reputation or ongoing efforts, and such personal goodwill was not includable as a marital asset or divisible in a marital dissolution action.
posted by Jerome Peters