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

Los Angeles Professional Malpractice Law Blog

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.

What are some common mistakes spurring malpractice claims?

A commentator notes in a recently penned law journal article a widely held misconception concerning legal malpractice.

Namely, that is this: the predominant concern of many attorneys that they will be found liable for one or more major mistakes they make in their application of complex legal rules and principles.

CA attorneys’ fingerprinting produces a notable result

The fingerprinting of California lawyers has long been a statutorily imposed requirement.

Notwithstanding the duty, though, the onus has been less than routinely insisted upon by state legal regulators. That inconsistency in adhering to the law led to subsequent legislation in 2017 that mandated the re-fingerprinting of all practitioners on active status.

CA legal malpractice insurance mandate on near horizon?

A key California rule governing attorneys requires all practicing lawyers across the state to inform clients in writing if they don’t carry liability insurance.

Proponents of that mandate regard it as a core protection for the general public. Practitioners who don’t carry insurance against malpractice arguably pose a heightened risk to clients who in good faith rely upon their competence and focused representation.

A growing concern with attorney stress, client impact

Every occupational group has inherent stresses and pressures that can mar individuals’ work quality and compromise their delivery of services to third parties who depend on them.

Doctors are well known in that regard, for instance, as are airline pilots and police officers.

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