» Legal Malpractice
Virginia Legal Malpractice: The burden of proving non-collectibility is on negligent attorney
August 1st, 2015
In Shevlin Smith v. McLaughlin, the Virginia Supreme Court considered the issues of: (1) whether an attorney breaches the duty to a client by failing to correctly anticipate a judicial ruling on an unsettled legal issue; (2) whether collectibility is relevant to a legal malpractice claim when the alleged injury is the loss…
Read More
Read More
Requirements to plead a legal malpractice action arising from a criminal matter in Virginia
July 27th, 2015
In Desetti v. Chester, the Virginia Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a plaintiff sufficiently pled a claim for legal malpractice that occurred during the course of an attorney's misrepresentation of the plaintiff in a criminal matter. The plaintiff, her husband, and her son were all involved in a criminal…
Read More
Read More
DC: Legal malpractice verdict in favor of plaintiff reversed on appeal due to lack of privity
August 16th, 2014
In Scott v. Burgin, No. 12-V-1474 (D.C. Aug. 14, 2014), the Court reversed a $255,000 jury award in a legal malpractice case against a divorce attorney. The plaintiff was not a client of the defendant law firm, and consequently the Court held that the defendant's duty of care did not extend to the Plaintiff, and revers…
Read More
Read More
Maryland bad faith/legal malpractice action against individual defense attorneys dismissed
August 27th, 2013
In Cook v. Nationwide Insurance Company, Case No. PWG-13-882 (D. Md. Aug. 23, 2013), the Court considered a “dizzying array” of motions in an insurance bad faith case arising out of an excess judgment in a motor vehicle accident case tried in Maryland state court. The federal district court denied the plaintiff&…
Read More
Read More
Lawyers Professional Liability - Unreported administrative error results in disclaimer of coverage
April 16th, 2012
In Minnesota Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baylor & Jackson, PLLC, No. 10-2701 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2012), the District Court granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the insurer is not liable to defend or indemnify the defendant law firm under an LPL policy. The Court awarded summary judgment based on the finding th…
Read More
Read More
4th Circuit affirms summary judgment based on business enterprise exclusion in LPL policy
April 8th, 2012
In Minnesota Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Antonelli, Terry, Stout & Kraus, LLP, No. 10-2404 (4th Cir. March 29, 2012)(unpublished), the Court affirmed the District Court's award of summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the insurer does not have a duty to defend the insured law firm because the complaint falls e…
Read More
Read More
Attorney malpractice claims in $100 million D.C. patent malpractice suit survive preliminary motions
January 27th, 2012
In Lans v. Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg L.L.P., No. 02-2165 (D.D.C. May 23, 2011), the District Court, in a 120-page opinion, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss an attorney malpractice suit arising out of patent litigation. In this suit, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants’ alleged misdeeds resul…
Read More
Read More
Lawyer Professional Liability: D.C. Circuit discusses remedy following breach of fiduciary duty
January 23rd, 2012
In So v. Suchanek, Nos. 10-7071, 10-7087 and 10-7113 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 20, 2012), a professional liability action against an attorney, the Court considered the defendant attorney's appeal of a judgment that the attorney had to disgorge fees, with interest, totaling $455,933.52 as a result of the attorney's breach of…
Read More
Read More
Legal malpractice in D.C.: the common knowledge exception to the requirement of expert opinion
November 17th, 2011
In Carranza v. Fraas, No. 05-0117 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2011), Judge Urbina granted summary judgment on legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims, due to the plaintiffs’ lack of expert testimony supporting some of their claims, and the plaintiffs’ lack of admissible evidence to support their last remainin…
Read More
Read More
Legal malpractice decision explores roles of judge, jury, and expert in District of Columbia
September 15th, 2011
In a legal malpractice case, Hickey v. Scott, No. 07-1866 (D.D.C. July 11, 2011), the District Court explored the respective roles of the judge, jury, and expert under D.C. law. (An earlier decision in this case was previously discussed here.) The claim discussed in this ruling was the plaintiff’s allegation that the…
Read More
Read More
