Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer BlogCourts are consistent that a legal malpractice plaintiff must have an expert witness to bring a legal malpractice claim. This is a barrier to brining malpractice claims, but it makes sense given that the jury must be informed of the standard of care. If you intend to bring a claim against your lawyer, make sure that you have considered this cost before the case begins.
Published on:
Legal Fees Incurred to Remedy Legal Malpractice Are Recoverable Damages
Merrifield v. ATS Advisors, Michigan Supreme Court (March 6, 2026)
Background
Plaintiffs Nick Merrifield and Merrifield Machinery Solutions sued ATS Advisors, James Sullivan, and Shane Randell for accounting malpractice and sought to recover attorney fees as an element of their damages. The Oakland Circuit Court dismissed that claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the American rule barred recovery of attorney fees as damages.
Published on:
New York Court Validates Defense Malpractice Theory
Malpractice cases arising out of litigation matters always involve some sort of claim involving the underlying case. This is one such case where the plaintiff claimed that its lawyers negligently waived a defense it had to an underlying claim. The trial court dismissed the complaint but the Appellate Division reinstated it. Park West is claiming that in the underlying personal injury case its lawyers should have raised the defense that Ms. Rivera was an independent contractor, not an employee. If she was an independent contractor, Park West would not have been liable for the car accident in the underlying case. (We don’t know whether or not this is true. We only know what Park West alleged in its malpractice complaint. The complaint is merely allegations and has not been proven.) Still the case is interesting. If you have a question or suspect you were a victim of malpractice, do not hesitate to call us. Ed Clinton, Jr.
Park West Executive Services, Inc. v. Gallo Vitucci & Klar, LLP
2026 NY Slip Op 00428 | App. Div., 1st Dept. | Decided January 29, 2026
Published on:
Legal Malpractice Claim Arising Out of Forfeiture Claim Dismissed
Kuzar v. Spar & Bernstein, 2026 NY Slip OP 50173, is a decision dismissing a legal malpractice action on the ground that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to show that, but for the lawyer’s alleged error, the plaintiff would have won the underlying case.
The plaintiff, Juraj Kuzar, sued his former lawyers, Spar & Bernstein, for:
- Legal malpractice
Published on:
Discussion of How to Avoid Malpractice Claims As a Litigator
This is a YouTube video of a presentation on how to avoid malpractice claims in litigation.
Published on:
Georgia Supreme Court Disbars Attorney For Multiple Violations of the Rules
Summary: In the Matter of Charles Bruce Singleton, Jr. (Ga. 2026)
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 17, 2026 Outcome: Disbarment
Background
Published on:
Member of Homeowner’s Association Lacks Attorney-Client Relationship With Association’s Attorney
Eagle Ridge Subdivision, Inc. v. Ott & Associates Co., LPA
Leonard Slodov, a homeowner and former treasurer of Eagle Ridge Subdivision homeowners association, sued the law firm Ott & Associates for legal malpractice. Slodov had served on the association’s board for 12 years until allegedly being improperly removed in 2021. After his removal, Ott & Associates (representing the association) filed a lien and foreclosure action against Slodov for unpaid dues. Slodov then filed this malpractice suit both individually and purportedly on behalf of the association.
The opinion sets out the key facts in these two paragraphs:
Published on:
New York Court Reinstates Legal Malpractice Action
Campbell v. Law offices of Solomon Rosengarten, 241 A.D.3d 771 (2025), 238 N.Y.S.3d 679, 2025 NY Slip Op 04700, is a decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reinstating a legal malpractice claim that the trial court had dismissed as time-barred. The explanation:
In 2016, Campbell executed a consent to change attorneys form and filed it in the Supreme Court, Kings County. Campbell then moved in the Supreme Court to restore the action to the active calendar, for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and for leave to file a note of issue. In an order dated November 22, 2017, the motion was denied without prejudice to refile in the Civil Court, Kings County. Campbell then moved in the Civil Court to restore the action to the active calendar and for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In an order dated December 10, 2019, the Civil Court denied the motion (hereinafter the Civil Court order).
In January 2020, Campbell commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice. The defendants moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice as time-barred. In an order dated May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion. Campbell appeals.
Published on:
New Lawline Course on Avoiding Malpractice in Litigation
https://www.lawline.com/course/avoiding-legal-malpractice-claims-in-litigation-update
If you have questions about a potential malpractice claim, fill out the form on our website with details of your case.
Ed Clinton, Jr.