Published on:

By

This is another chapter in the long-running battle between beneficiaries of estates and estate planning attorneys. For much of the 19th century if a lawyer made an error in the drafting of an estate planning document, the intended beneficiary could not sue for legal malpractice because the intended beneficiary was not “in privity” with the lawyer. The words “in privity” meant that the intended beneficiary did not have a direct attorney-client relationship with the lawyer. (Of course, in most estate planning matters, the only person with an attorney-client relationship is deceased by the time the error is discovered).

The privity rule was extremely beneficial to attorneys because it meant that they could rarely be sued for legal malpractice. In recent years, courts have chipped away at the privity rule. The courts have acted from the obvious concern that the lawyer who makes a mistake depriving a beneficiary of an inheritance should not be able to hide behind a technicality to escape liability.

In this case, the plaintiff was the Richmond Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or RSPCA. RSPCA alleged that there was an error in the drafting of a will and the error caused it to lose an expected inheritance of real property.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Proximate causation is often the issue that defeats a legal malpractice case. In this case, even though a law firm failed to timely appeal an interlocutory ruling, there was no malpractice because the ruling was correct. Thus, even if the appeal had been filed on time, the plaintiff would have lost the case anyway.

The underlying case was litigated in the courts of the State of Oregon. Here, the plaintiff hired a law firm to give an opinion on whether an adverse ruling in a case could be appealed. The law firm essentially said that the ruling was interlocutory and that no appeal could be taken until the entire case was completed. To complete the case the plaintiff dismissed its remaining claims and appealed. The appeal was, however, dismissed because it was not timely.

Plaintiff then sued the law firm alleging that the law firm gave incorrect advice on the appeal deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment for the law firm. It held that plaintiff could not establish proximate causation, that is, but for the negligence, plaintiff would have obtained a better result in the underlying lawsuit.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This is an important issue in legal malpractice cases. A lawyer represents a client in litigation. If the lawyer is granted leave to withdraw from that matter by the court, does that decision bar a legal malpractice claim by the client? The Washington Court of Appeals held that the withdrawal, even where approved by a court, does not collaterally estop a legal malpractice claim.

Generally, a litigant must establish four things to collaterally estop the other party from litigating an issue: (1) the identical issue was decided, (2) there was a final judgment on the merits, (3) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted must have been a party to the earlier proceeding, and (4) application of collateral estoppel will not work an injustice against the estopped party.

The court explained that two of the four factors required to establish collateral estoppel were not present:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Nebraska Supreme Court has reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a lawyer in a legal malpractice claim. The plaintiff was a former client of a divorce attorney. She alleged that he breached the standard of care by failing to explain to her that she had signed an agreement that unambiguously waived any interest in her ex-husband’s life insurance policy.

The underlying case was a typical divorce case resolved by an equally typical Marital Settlement Agreement. The Court quotes from three of its provisions:

In the agreement, Brenda and Dale divided the marital estate and waived whatever interest they had in certain property owned by the other spouse. Paragraph VI provided:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This is an opinion affirming the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim against divorce attorneys. Plaintiff alleged that her former attorneys did not “ascertain the full extent of her former husband’s income, and failed to make an adequate record before the matrimonial court regarding her former husband’s level of adherence to the tenets of Orthodox Judaism and the needs of their children not to have visitation with the former husband on the Jewish Sabbath and holidays.” The lawyers moved for summary judgment and the plaintiff, also a lawyer, filed a response in opposition to that motion. The court held that the client’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut the lawyer’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court does not state why the affidavit was deficient but one may guess that the affidavit by the former client did not explain how the work done by the lawyers failed to meet the standard of care for a divorce lawyer involved in the divorce of an Orthodox couple.

Plaintiff may have been able to avoid this problem by hiring a divorce lawyer to act as her expert witness. She apparently chose not to go down that path and the result was unfavorable to her.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This is a decision of the Nebraska Court of Appeals reinstating a legal malpractice claim against a personal injury attorney even though the underlying case was settled.

The defendant attorney urged the client to accept a $45,000 settlement of a personal injury claim arising out of an auto accident. The plaintiff agreed to the proposed settlement, but then sued the lawyer for legal malpractice. The basis of her claim was essentially that the settlement was inadequate because she had suffered serious permanent injuries requiring medical expenses far exceeding the amount of the settlement.

The court explained:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The plaintiff sued a lawyer for legal malpractice. The lawyer failed to timely report the legal malpractice claim to his carrier and the claim was denied. The plaintiff then sued the insurer directly with no success for the same reason. Because the lawyer failed to report the claim to the insurer, the claim for coverage was denied.

Do not ever retain an attorney who does not have insurance.

Source: McCarty v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Dist. Court, SD Ohio 2016 – Google Scholar

Published on:

By

It is very common that someone will come into my office and explain that he is a victim of legal malpractice. Often, for reasons I don’t understand, the person waits more than two years after the underlying judgment before they contact me. By waiting this long, the statute of limitations has run and there is absolutely nothing we can do to help the plaintiff.

In Illinois the plaintiff has two years to file suit from whenever the plaintiff discovers the injury. Where there is litigation, discovery occurs when the underlying case reaches judgment.

In Belden v. Emmerman, the Illinois Appellate Court held that the statute of limitations begins to run when there is an adverse judgment against the injured party. The defendant moved to dismiss and the plaintiff argued that, because he filed an appeal of the adverse judgment, the statute of limitations did not start to run until the appeal was decided.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This is an old but sad story: a plaintiff in federal court misses the expert disclosure deadline and then the entire case is lost. The district court has the authority to set deadlines for expert disclosure and can enforce those deadlines. After the plaintiffs failed to disclose an expert, the district court entered summary judgment against them. They appealed, but the Seventh Circuit was also unsympathetic.

Source: HASSEBROCK v. BERNHOFT, Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2016 – Google Scholar

Published on:

By

The plaintiff, Cynthia O’Neal, brought a legal malpractice claim against her former lawyers. O’Neal, an owner of a restaurant chain that fell on hard times, alleged that her former lawyers had a conflict of interest when the represented her company and the opposing party in an assumption of a lease. The court rejected her claim on the grounds that she was unable to establish proximate causation.

In my experience, proximate causation can be difficult to prove. Lawyers make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes breach the duty of care. The plaintiff must tie the negligent act to the damages suffered by plaintiff and come up with a plausible theory as to how the lawyers made things worse and caused the damage.

One area where it is very difficult to prove proximate causation is a legal malpractice claim in the foreclosure setting. The lawyer who defends the foreclosure may miss a deadline or make a legal error. However, that lawyer did not cause the default and did not proximately cause any damages.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
111 W Washington St, #1437
Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312.357.1515

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2026, The Clinton Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design