A recent national article on law and lawyers makes a number of pointed commentaries on the legal profession. At its core, though, it is essentially a warning piece focused on a single and alarming takeaway.
The so-called Camp Fire that has raged on recently in Northern California in an unprecedented way has inflicted unspeakable harm on individuals, families and businesses across a broad swath of the state. Tragically, scores of people have died in the conflagration, with many hundreds still being unaccounted for.
The law firm involved in a high-profile legal malpractice case insists that it is blameless.
Although it made a strong effort to avoid court, that is precisely the venue where a lawsuit involving large national law firm Blank Rome is now headed. A decision rendered by a New York judge last week ruled against the firm’s summary judgment motion to dismiss a legal malpractice case against it. In doing so, the court ruled that key factual issues remain unresolved and must be evaluated by a jury.
A recent in-depth article addressed to practicing American attorneys sets forth a number of so-called “best practice” tips aimed at helping them steer clear of legal liability that might otherwise arise through deficient lawyering. The piece duly notes that legal malpractice risks are “at an all-time high” and understandably need to be guarded against to the fullest extent possible.
California residents who retain attorneys often do so – and reasonably enough, we think – with the assumption that their relied-upon legal counsel carries malpractice insurance.
It is clear what State Bar of California Executive Director Leah Wilson is primarily addressing in her reference to the “reform momentum” evident in recently passed legislation affecting state attorneys.
We note on our website (and, additionally, in many of our blog posts) that legal malpractice in California and elsewhere encompasses a broad realm of wrongdoing. Clients often have legitimate grievances against their retained legal counsel based on multiple grounds. Those encompass incompetent representation, ethics/morals violations, missed deadlines, communication failures and malfeasance concerning fees.
Active California legal practitioners might collectively be lamenting the recently imposed duty upon them to submit to fingerprinting by the end of next April. We noted in a recent Glickman & Glickman blog post that the new onus has resulted in the State Bar of California being “flooded with thousands of negative comments from lawyers.”
Minnesota is a “sister state,” notes a recent written decision of the California State Bar Court. What that means is that California legal authorities will pay close attention to select attorney discipline proceedings there, as well as in all other states, which are similarly characterized.