DOCSLIB.ORG

LEGAL MALPRACTICE DAMAGES Author & Presenter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LEGAL MALPRACTICE DAMAGES Author & Presenter LEGAL MALPRACTICE DAMAGES Author & Presenter: WARREN W. HARRIS, Houston Bracewell & Giuliani [email protected] Co-Authors: JEFFREY L. OLDHAM LINDSAY E. HAGANS Bracewell & Giuliani LLP 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77002-2770 (713) 221-1490 State Bar of Texas 7th ANNUAL DAMAGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION February 26-27, 2015 Houston CHAPTER 23 WARREN W. HARRIS 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77002-2770 (713) 221-1490 [email protected] EMPLOYMENT: Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Partner, Head of Appellate Group University of Texas School of Law, Adjunct Professor in Appellate Advocacy (2006-07) University of Houston Law Center, Adjunct Professor in Appellate Advocacy (2000-05) Supreme Court of Texas, Briefing Attorney (1988-89) BOARD CERTIFICATION: Civil Appellate Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization (1993- ) RECOGNITION: Chambers USA: Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Appellate Litigation (2006- ) The Best Lawyers in America, Appellate Practice (2007- ), Houston Appellate Practice “Lawyer of the Year” (2014) Texas Super Lawyers, Top 100 Lawyers in Texas (2006- ), Appellate Law (2003- ) Warren W. Harris Outstanding Nominating Chair Award, Texas Bar Foundation (2014) Gene Cavin Award (Excellence in Continuing Legal Education), State Bar of Texas (2014) A Standing Ovation Award (Exceptional Contribution to CLE Programming), TexasBarCLE (2013) Alumnus of the Year Award, University of Houston Law Alumni Association (2007) EDUCATION: University of Houston Law Center, Doctor of Jurisprudence Cum Laude (1988) ASSOCIATIONS AND JOURNALS: Texas Supreme Court Historical Society (President 2012-13) Texas Bar Foundation (Chair of Fellows 2010-11) University of Houston Law Alumni Association (President 2009-11) State Bar of Texas, Appellate Section (Chair 2005-06) Houston Bar Association (Director 2008- ), Appellate Practice Section (Chair 1998-99) Houston Volunteer Lawyers Program (Chair 2012-13) Houston Lawyer Referral Service (Chair 2013-14) International Association of Defense Counsel, Appellate Practice Committee (Chair 2003-09) American Bar Association TIPS, Appellate Advocacy Committee (Chair 2000-01) TEXAS BAR JOURNAL (Editorial Board Chair 2002-06) THE REVIEW OF LITIGATION (Advisory Board 2006- ) SELECTED SPEECHES AND Advanced Civil Appellate Practice Course, State Bar of Texas – 2014, 2013, 2012, 2009, 2008, 2007 PUBLICATIONS: (Course Director), 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1999, 1998, 1996 Practice Before the Texas Supreme Court, State Bar of Texas – 2013, 2011, 2007, 2003 Advanced Civil Trial Course, State Bar of Texas – 2012, 2008, 2004 Advanced In-House Counsel Course, State Bar of Texas – 2013 (Course Director), 2011 (Co-course Director), 2010, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 Advanced Personal Injury Law Course, State Bar of Texas – 2014 Conference on Techniques for Handling Civil Appeals in State and Federal Court, University of Texas School of Law – 2003, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992 Appellate Practice Section, Houston Bar Association – 2014, 2010, 2005, 2004, 2002, 1998, 1992, 1991 Appellate Law Section, Dallas Bar Association – 2005, 2000, 1993 Litigation Section, Houston Bar Association – 2006, 2005, 2004, 1998 International Association of Defense Counsel – 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003 Appellate Law, TEXAS BAR JOURNAL – 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 JEFFREY L. OLDHAM 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77002-2770 (713) 221-1225 [email protected] EMPLOYMENT: Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Partner, Appellate Group Counsel to the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (2005-06) Law Clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, U.S. Supreme Court (2004-05) Law Clerk to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2003-04) BOARD CERTIFICATION: Civil Appellate Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization (2011- ) RECOGNITION: The Best Lawyers in America, Appellate Practice (2014- ) Texas Super Lawyers (2013- ) Texas Rising Stars (2010-12) EDUCATION: Northwestern University School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude, Order of the Coif (2003) John Paul Stevens Award winner (first in class) Coordinating Articles Editor, Northwestern University Law Review University of Tulsa, B.S.B.A., summa cum laude, with honors (2000) Faculty Honor Medal winner (first in class) ASSOCIATIONS: Texas Bar Foundation: Sustaining Life Fellow; Nominating Committee Member Houston Bar Foundation, Fellow Houston Bar Association: Appellate Section Council member; Board Member of Houston Lawyer Referral Service; Co-Chair of CLE Committee; Member of Houston Lawyer editorial board State Bar of Texas, Appellate Section; Member and Co-Chair of CLE Committee SELECTED SPEECHES Advanced Civil Appellate Course, State Bar of Texas – 2014, 2013, AND PUBLICATIONS: 2012, 2011, 2009, 2008 Advanced Civil Trial Course, State Bar of Texas – 2012, 2011 Advanced Personal Injury Law Course, State Bar of Texas – 2014 State Bar of Texas Litigation Section’s The Advocate – 2013 HBA’s Houston Lawyer Magazine – 2013 LINDSAY E. HAGANS 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300 Austin, Texas 78701-4061 (512) 472-7800 [email protected] EMPLOYMENT: Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Associate, Appellate Group Briefing Attorney to Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Supreme Court of Texas (2013-14) EDUCATION: University of Texas School of Law, Doctor of Jurisprudence, with honors (2013) • Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law, Staff Editor University of Southern California, Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude (2006) ASSOCIATIONS: Texas Supreme Court Historical Society Austin Young Lawyers Association State Bar of Texas, Appellate Section Austin Bar Association SPEECHES AND PUBLICATIONS: Appellate Law, 78 TEXAS BAR JOURNAL 28 (2015) Damages in the Jury Charge, Damages in Civil Litigation Course, State Bar of Texas – 2015 Legal Malpractice Damages, Damages in Civil Litigation Course, State Bar of Texas – 2015 Legal Malpractice Damages Chapter 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................................................... ii I. OVERVIEW OF A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM ................................................................................... 1 A. Duty ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 B. Breach ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 C. Causation ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 D. Damages ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 II. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CAUSATION AND DAMAGES ............................................................... 4 III. THE CASE-WITHIN-A-CASE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 4 IV. USE OF SETTLEMENT-VALUE IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASES ....................................................... 5 A. An Alternative to Case-Within-A-Case .......................................................................................................... 5 B. Texas Law on Settlement-Value ..................................................................................................................... 5 1. The Texas Supreme Court Pre-Elizondo v. Krist: Focus is on Case-Within-A-Case ........................... 5 2. The Courts of Appeals Pre-Elizondo v. Krist ........................................................................................ 6 3. Elizondo v. Krist: Opening the Door for Settlement-Value .................................................................. 8 C. Other States’ Law on Settlement-Value ......................................................................................................... 9 1. States generally allowing settlement-value ........................................................................................... 9 2. States requiring case-within-a-case methodology ............................................................................... 12 3. States that have an additional settlement measure of damages ........................................................... 12 4. States rejecting claims for inadequate settlement ............................................................................... 14 D. Lost Settlement Opportunity ......................................................................................................................... 15 E. The Future of Settlement-Value: Limited to Mass Torts? ............................................................................ 16 V. EXPERT TESTIMONY FOR CAUSATION AND DAMAGES ................................................................... 17 A. When Expert Testimony Is Required ............................................................................................................ 17 B. Validity of Expert Testimony ....................................................................................................................... 19 iv Legal Malpractice Damages Chapter 23 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat’l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. 2009) ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FTCA Handbook Is a Revision of the Material Originally Published in July 1979 and Updated Periodically Since
    JACS-Z 1 November 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMS JUDGE ADVOCATES/CLAIMS ATTORNEYS SUBJECT: Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) Handbook 1. This edition of the FTCA Handbook is a revision of the material originally published in July 1979 and updated periodically since. The previous edition was last updated in September 1998. This edition contains significant cases through September 1999 pertaining to the filing and processing of administrative claims under the FTCA (Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2671-2680) and related claims statutes. 2. This Handbook provides case citations covering a myriad of issues. The citations are organized in a topical manner, paralleling the steps an attorney should take in analyzing a claim. Older citations have not been removed. Shepardizing is essential. 3. If any errors are noted, including the omission of relevant cases, please use the error sheet at the end of the Handbook to bring this to our attention. Users needing further information or clarification of this material should contact their Area Action Officer or Mr. Joseph H. Rouse, Deputy Chief, Tort Claims Division, DSN: 923-7009, extension 212; or commercial: (301) 677-7009, extension 212. JOHN H. NOLAN III Colonel, JA Commanding TABLE OF CONTENTS I. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FILING A. Why is There a Requirement? 1. Effective Date of Requirement............................ 1 2. Administrative Filing Requirement Jurisdictional......... 1 3. Waiver of Administrative Filing Requirement.............. 1 4. Purposes of Requirement.................................. 2 5. Administrative Filing Location........................... 2 6. Not Necessary for Compulsory Counterclaim................ 2 7. Not Necessary for Third Party Practice................... 2 B. What Must be Filed? 1. Written Demand for Sum Certain..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Libel As Malpractice: News Media Ethics and the Standard of Care
    Fordham Law Review Volume 53 Issue 3 Article 3 1984 Libel as Malpractice: News Media Ethics and the Standard of Care Todd F. Simon Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Todd F. Simon, Libel as Malpractice: News Media Ethics and the Standard of Care, 53 Fordham L. Rev. 449 (1984). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol53/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIBEL AS MALPRACTICE: NEWS MEDIA ETHICS AND THE STANDARD OF CARE TODD F. SIMON* INTRODUCTION D OCTORS, lawyers, and journalists share a strong common bond: They live in fear of being haled into court where the trier of fact will pass judgment on how they have performed their duties. When the doc- tor or lawyer is sued by a patient or client, it is a malpractice case.I The standard by which liability is determined is whether the doctor or lawyer acted with the knowledge, skill and care ordinarily possessed and em- ployed by members of the profession in good standing.' Accordingly, if * Assistant Professor and Director, Journalism/Law Institute, Michigan State Uni- versity School of Journalism; Member, Nebraska Bar. 1. W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 32, at 185-86 (5th ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Case: 1:13-Cv-00098-LW Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/04/14 1 of 26. Pageid
    Case: 1:13-cv-00098-LW Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/04/14 1 of 26. PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS, et al., ) Case No. 1:13CV0098 ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) JUDGE LESLEY WELLS ) (Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh) WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & ) DAVIS, LLP, et al., ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) REPORT AND ) RECOMMENDATION McHARGH, Mag. J. The plaintiff Windsor- Laurelwood Center for Behavioral Medicine (“Laurelwood”) filed suit against defendants Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP, attorney Mark Peters, and attorney W. Judd Peak. The amended complaint (“amended complaint,” or simply, “complaint”) contains three counts: (1) legal malpractice, against defendants Peters and Peak; (2) fraud, against defendants Peters and Peak; and (3) vicarious liability/ respondeat superior, against defendant Waller. The amended complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Doc. 2 5 , Am. Compl.) The defendants had represented Laurelwood in a prior employment discrimination action brought against Laurelwood. Laurelwood’s allegations stem from the defendants’ handling of discovery documents and certain representations made to Laurelwood during the course of their attorney-client relationship. Case: 1:13-cv-00098-LW Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/04/14 2 of 26. PageID #: <pageID> The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the fraud count, and the request for punitive damages. (Doc. 27, and exhibits, doc. 28.) The plaintiffs have filed a memorandum in opposition. (Doc. 29.) The defendants have filed a reply (doc. 30), with supplemental authority (doc. 31). The plaintiffs have weighed in on the supplemental authority. (Doc. 32.) I. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Until fairly recently, the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted was that the motion establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that “the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v.
    [Show full text]
  • Restricting Evidence of Battered Child Syndrome
    NELSON 2/15/2012 4:48 PM THE MISUSE OF ABUSE: RESTRICTING EVIDENCE OF BATTERED CHILD SYNDROME KIP NELSON* “We must not allow our abhorrence of an act to become the abhorrence of conscious and deliberate thought and observation in connection with child abuse.”1 I INTRODUCTION The line between medicine and law has never been exactly bright. Yet when physical violence occurs, it naturally implicates both disciplines. This interdisciplinary blend is particularly evident in the case of child abuse. Thus, as child abuse became a recognized phenomenon in medical science, it also became a subject of criminal prosecution. As the scientific definition of child abuse has expanded, so has its importance in the legal arena. Battered child syndrome (BCS), which was originally intended to be a helpful tool for physicians, has evolved into a cunning instrument for prosecutors and a clever trump card for parricide defendants. Since 1962, doctors have been researching child abuse in the form of BCS. More recently, over the past few decades, both child abuse prosecutors and homicide defendants have sought to introduce evidence of the syndrome into the courts. Because of these two distinct and conflicting forms, one might ask, “[W]hich use of battered child syndrome do you believe? Many courts have still not figured this out.”2 Medical and mental health professionals generally use BCS as a shorthand description of serious abuse. Children who are intentionally harmed by their caretakers are labeled battered children.3 Injuries that may fall within BCS range from minor bruises to fatal skull fractures.4 Furthermore, the broad Copyright © 2012 by Kip Nelson.
    [Show full text]
  • Fraud and Misrepresentation Claims Against Lawyers
    16 NEV. L.J. 57, RICHMOND - FINAL.DOCX 1/15/16 1:34 PM FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION CLAIMS AGAINST LAWYERS Douglas R. Richmond* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 57 I. UNDERSTANDING FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION ........................... 63 A. Common Law Fraud ...................................................................... 63 B. Fraudulent Concealment ............................................................... 70 C. Constructive Fraud ....................................................................... 75 D. Negligent Misrepresentation ......................................................... 77 E. The Role of Rules of Professional Conduct ................................... 82 II. ILLUSTRATIVE CASES ............................................................................ 84 A. Settlement Negotiations in Litigation ............................................ 84 B. Litigators’ Allegedly Fraudulent Statements Outside of Settlement Negotiations ................................................................. 88 C. Third Party Reliance on a Lawyer’s Statements in a Real Estate Transaction ......................................................................... 93 D. The Dean Foods Opinion Controversy ......................................... 99 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 103 INTRODUCTION Most lawyers are competent, diligent, and honest. No lawyer
    [Show full text]
  • Note, the Standard of Proof of Causation in Legal Malpractice Cases
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 2006 Note, The Standard of Proof of Causation in Legal Malpractice Cases Erik M. Jensen Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Legal Profession Commons, and the Torts Commons Repository Citation Jensen, Erik M., "Note, The Standard of Proof of Causation in Legal Malpractice Cases" (2006). Faculty Publications. 455. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/455 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE STANDARD OF PROOF OF CAUSATION IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASES INTRODUCTION In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 1 the United States Supreme Court, while holding an innocent and unsuspecting plaintiff re­ sponsible for the sins of his attorney, gave hope to similarly ag­ grieved clients: "[I]f an attorney's conduct falls substantially below what is reasonable under the circumstances, the client's remedy is against the attorney in a suit for malpractice."2 Nevertheless, if nearly insuperable barriers prevent most aggrieved clients from prevailing in meritorious legal malpractice suits, the Court's reas­ surance is hollow indeed. The traditional standard of proof of causation in legal malpractice cases, the "but for" test, 3 stands as one imposing barrier to recovery. To the extent that judges invoke misplaced confidence in the malpractice remedy to justify punish­ ing clients for attorney misconduct, they distort the legal process.
    [Show full text]
  • 140500 Justice Leroy F
    Present: Lemons, C.J, Goodwyn, Millette, McClanahan, and Powell, JJ., and Russell and Lacy, S.JJ. SHEVLIN SMITH OPINION BY v. Record No. 140500 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. February 26, 2015 BRUCE W. McLAUGHLIN FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Michael F. Devine, Judge In this appeal we consider, among other issues, (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 of an otherwise viable claim, and (3) whether non- pecuniary damages are recoverable in a legal malpractice claim. I. Facts And Proceedings This appeal arises from a legal malpractice claim. Typically, a legal malpractice claim involves a case within the case, because the legal malpractice plaintiff must establish how the attorney's negligence in the underlying litigation proximately caused the legal malpractice plaintiff's damages. This appeal presents an additional level to this typical format, as the underlying litigation in which the alleged malpractice occurred was itself a legal malpractice claim. This legal malpractice claim therefore implicates a case (the initial criminal matter) within a case (the criminal malpractice matter) within the case (the legal malpractice matter that is now before us). A. The Criminal Matter In 1998, Bruce McLaughlin was charged on multiple counts of felony sexual abuse. McLaughlin hired William J. Schewe of the firm Graham & Schewe, and Harvey J. Volzer of the firm Shaughnessy, Volzer & Gagner, P.C. to represent him in this criminal matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Malpractice Claim Against Law Firm Barred by Former Attorney's Prior Knowledge −
    NEWSLETTER Legal Malpractice Claim Against Law Firm Barred by Former Attorney's Prior Knowledge − December 2011 The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida has granted partial summary judgment for an insurer, holding that coverage for a legal malpractice claim against a law firm under a lawyer's professional liability (LPL) policy was barred by the policy's prior knowledge exclusion. AXIS Ins. Co. v. Farah & Farah, P.A., et. al., 2011 WL 5510063 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2011). It was undisputed that a former attorney of the law firm had a reasonable expectation, prior to the effective date of the LPL policy, that a former client would bring a legal malpractice claim against the firm. The court held that the attorney was an Insured as defined under the LPL policy, thus triggering the prior knowledge exclusion. In April 2003, an attorney entered into an agreement with the insured law firm to "provide litigation, support, service, direction and decision making for plaintiff's bodily injury and wrongful death cases to [the law firm] in- house at [the law firm's] office." The attorney's name was added to the name of the law firm. In August 2003, the law firm, and the attorney in particular, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the United States government on behalf of the parents of a minor child who had sustained serious and permanent injuries in a Navy hospital. The district court ruled in favor of the parents and their son on the medical malpractice claim and awarded the parents loss of consortium damages in an amount over $800,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Malpractice
    ATTORNEYS Legal Malpractice LewisBrisbois.com Legal Malpractice ince its founding, our firm has successfully defended thousands of lawyers, as well as the firms in which they practice, ranging from sole practitioners to some of the largest law firms in the country. The underlying legal matters involved in Sthese cases include: • Bankruptcy • Estate Planning & Probate • Business Litigation and Transactions • Immigration • Civil Litigation • Intellectual Property & Trademark • Collection • Malicious Prosecution • Commercial Litigation • Medical Malpractice • Construction Defect • Personal Injury • Criminal Law • Products Liability • Defamation • Real Estate • Divorce & Family Law • Tax • Employment • Toxic Torts • Environmental • Workers’ Compensation Many of these cases involved multi-million dollar claims in either state or federal courts through trial and on appeal. In addition to defending suits brought by our clients’ former clients, we also defend suits brought by third-parties, such as malicious prosecution, abuse of process, claims of conspiracy, and claims brought by disgruntled heirs. Lewis Brisbois has been the prevailing counsel in numerous published appellate decisions involving lawyers. The development and implementation of an effective defense for legal malpractice claims depends heavily on the underlying area of law. Within our firm, we have attorneys who specialize in bankruptcy, corporate law, employment and labor law, entertainment, estate planning, intellectual property and patent litigation, maritime law, medical malpractice, products liability, tax law, toxic tort and environmental litigation, workers’ compensation, and numerous other areas. Our size and depth of practice provides our firm with access to knowledgeable practitioners in numerous practice areas, enabling us to efficiently analyze a claim and pursue the most expeditious defense strategy, often without having to first retain outside experts or consultants.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Law in California: at the Crossroads
    Tort Law in California: At the Crossroads Neil M. Levyt & Edmund Ursint During the 1960's and 1970's, the California Supreme Court inau- gurated a revolution in tort law by radically enhancing the ability of accident victims to obtain compensation.' This revolution is most fre- quently associated with Chief Justice Traynor,2 who joined the court in 1940 and served as Chief Justice from 1964 to 1970. But Justices Mosk, Peters, Sullivan, Tobriner, and Chief Justice Wright also were instru- mental in reshaping California tort law. Indeed, the California tort revolution was brought about through agreement by a solid majority of the court, even in precedent-shattering cases. The unabashed judicial creativity exhibited by the court in establishing new avenues of tort recovery led to its emergence as the most influential state supreme court in the field of tort law. Recently, however, the court's direction has been far less obvious. Defendants have prevailed on a number of major issues.4 For example, Copyright © 1979, by Edmund Ursin & Neil M. Levy. This Article benefited from an unpublished paper by Susan Eydenberg Westlake, J.D. candidate, 1979, University of San Diego. Ms. Westlake's paper discussed the award of pain and suffering damages in light of recent Califor- nia Supreme Court decisions such as Borer v. American Airlines, Inc., 19 Cal. 3d 441, 563 P.2d 858, 138 Cal. Rptr. 302 (1977). t Professor of Law, Golden Gate University. A.B. 1963, Cornell University; J.D. 1966, University of Chicago. t Professor of Law, University of San Diego. A.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Malpractice: Is It Tort Or Contract? Blanche M
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 21 Issue 3 Spring 1990 Illinois Judicial Conference Article 2 Symposium 1990 Legal Malpractice: Is It Tort or Contract? Blanche M. Manning Honorable Justice, Illinois Appellate Court, First District Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Contracts Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Blanche M. ManningHonorable, Legal Malpractice: Is It Tort or Contract?, 21 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 741 (1990). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol21/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Legal Malpractice: Is it Tort or Contract? The Honorable Blanche M. Manning1 I. INTRODUCTION A large number of client complaints against attorneys are based upon the alleged neglect of client affairs. 2 A legal malpractice ac- tion may take the form of a contract action predicated upon an attorney's failure to perform pursuant to a contract of employ- ment.3 Legal malpractice actions in Illinois, however, have devel- oped as actions in tort.4 In these actions, plaintiffs generally seek recovery for economic loss damages resulting from the attorney's breach of duty to his client.5 In order to prevail on a tort-based claim of attorney malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the attorney-client relationship created a duty on the part of the attorney and that the attorney breached that duty.6 An attorney's duty of care arises upon formation of the attorney-client relationship.7 An attorney breaches his duty of care if he fails to exercise the care and skill expected of a member of the legal profession when handling his client's case.
    [Show full text]
  • Punitive Damages in Attorney Malpractice Cases
    Punitive Damages in Attorney Malpractice Cases Recent cases characterized as "malpractice" actions against at- torneys have included awards of punitive damages.' In each case there existed claims for relief based upon malpractice in its tradi- tional "professional negligence" sense and conduct which arguably fell beyond the professional duty owed by an attorney.= In essence, the attorney's conduct was judged as a whole: no distinctions were drawn between the breach of a professional responsibility owed to the client and wrongful acts which outside of the attorney-client relationship would still be actionable. The two merit separate con- sideration. For example, an attorney's intentional misrepresenta- tions to a client on matters which bear no relation to a lawsuit the client has asked the attorney to bring, and which the attorney has negligently allowed the statute of limitations to run on, are sepa- rate actss Letting the statute run is clearly malpractice.' Inten- tional misrepresentations on other matters may be characterized as fraudulent or malicious conduct, or as a wanton disregard of the client's rights6 Distinguishing such conduct from malpractice is important for several reasons: (1) punitive damages are generally inappropriate when the conduct is mere negligen~e;~(2) the elements of each cause of action are different;' and (3) the public should not be en- 1. See Blegan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 125 Cal. App. 3d 959, 178 Cal. Rptr. 470 (1981); Mitchell v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 551 S.W.2d 586 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977); McKinnon v. Tibbets, 440 A.2d 1028 (Me. 1982); Rodri- guez v.
    [Show full text]