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.
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.
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.
A responsive answer to the above blog query can be expressed in a single word. Namely, that is “sometimes.”
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.
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.
You want to make the case that you have a meritorious California legal malpractice case, and you think have a compelling claim.
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.
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.
A commentator notes in a recently penned law journal article a widely held misconception concerning legal malpractice.