Glickman & Glickman
Get the legal help you need
310-746-5116
Map & Directions Contact Us

Los Angeles Professional Malpractice Law Blog

Here’s an obvious malpractice concern for CA legal regulators

Message from the California State Bar to practicing attorneys across the state: client money remitted in reliance on your legal representation better be going to you, not a non-attorney.

Fee splitting is akin to a dirty word and spells a reproachable practice to state regulators when it pertains to client funds relevant to a case matter that go to both retained counsel and a nonlawyer third party.

Plaintiffs respond to law firm’s representation with a lawsuit

Spokespersons for national law firm Jones Day unsurprisingly term the volunteer work that firm attorneys do on a so-called “pro bono” basis as routinely first-rate and even exceptional.

Two individuals who recently filed a lawsuit against the firm in a Southern California state court beg to differ. Their complaint alleges that Jones Day representation in their pro bono matter left them destitute and homeless.

CA attorney discipline: What types of punishment can be ordered?

California has more actively practicing attorneys than any other state in the country. As can be clearly seen by any reader scanning even a few of our blog posts at the long-tenured Los Angeles legal malpractice law firm of Glickman & Glickman, some of those practitioners sometimes get into trouble.

That is, they get into professional – and sometimes legal – difficulties by shortchanging clients, who reasonably expect so secure competent assistance when they turn to a California attorney for help.

Will mitigating factors lessen CA State Bar attorney punishment?

A responsive answer to the above blog query can be expressed in a single word. Namely, that is “sometimes.”

It is not always the case that mitigation plays a key role in a California attorney’s disciplinary matter, though. A recent State Bar outcome amply demonstrates that.

Attorney wrath: recipe for an explosion, not client success

Message to quick-to-anger California attorneys: Your propensity for wrath in legal matters is far more than personally destructive. More importantly, it almost certainly works to the detriment of your clients.

The writers of a series of articles spotlighting lawyer-linked deficiencies that adversely affect client representation centrally include wrath as a core and worrisome component in the personal makeup of some advocates.

How is the California fingerprinting process going for attorneys?

Getting approximately 190,000 active California attorneys to duly comply with a re-fingerprinting requirement has proven to be a bit of a problem.

In fact, the process readily conjures up the maxim, “Easier said than done,” with thousands of practitioners reportedly still being tardy in their response.

Growing number of pelvic mesh plaintiffs now suing attorneys

We surmise that many California readers of our Los Angeles legal malpractice blogs at Glickman & Glickman are not strangers to the material details surrounding the long and sad saga of pelvic mesh litigation.

For close to a decade now, a handful-plus of mesh makers have been assailed by an avalanche of state and federal lawsuits from women who cite a direct nexus between surgically implanted mesh and resulting pelvic prolapse injuries.

What does proving a legal malpractice “case within the case” mean?

You want to make the case that you have a meritorious California legal malpractice case, and you think have a compelling claim.

For starters, you suffered damages that caught you totally by surprise. In fact, you thought that the matter you retained your attorney to represent you in was destined to result in your certain victory. Other people told you that. Perhaps your legal counsel also gave confident assurances concerning an expected outcome that didn’t come remotely close to occurring.

What does attorney conflict of interest actually mean, entail?

California legal authorities – the state’s Supreme Court, State Bar and other regulators – harbor no ambiguity when it comes to making determinations concerning whose interests are paramount in any attorney-client interaction.

It is simply a bedrock expectation grounded in legal precedent and time-honored practice that a lawyer representing a client in any matter must be free of personal taint that could harm the client’s interests.

Potential warning flag for attorney clients: gluttony?

What do you think of when you hear the term “gluttony?” Many people might readily conjure up an image of a person who just can’t leave the buffet. Gluttony might similarly serve as an apt descriptor for an individual whose appetite for accumulation, overindulgence or sheer possession in virtually any context seemingly knows no bounds.

Let’s talk lawyers for a moment, who are spotlighted in a recent series of legal articles focused on the so-called “deadly sins” of attorneys that can adversely impact client representation.

Contact us now to begin speaking with an attorney:

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy