Allison v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Tex: Court of Appeals, 14th Dist. 2012 – Google Scholar.
The Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed a suspension for a lawyer who missed deadlines in an immigration matter and whose client was deported as a result. This is a case where a lawyer’s neglect of a matter results in professional discipline. The court rejected the lawyer’s argument that the client was difficult to reach.
The rule is quoted below:
The ARDC Hearing Board has recommended a six month suspension for a lawyer who falsely notarized a quit claim deed and then, when he received an inquiry from the ARDC, falsely informed the ARDC that the signatures of his clients were genuine. The panel explains:
“
This is a dispute between an insurer and the lawyers who were hired to defend a case. Illinois has recognized that an insurance company has a right to sue defense counsel for malpractice. Illinois has never decided whether to allow an excess insurer to bring such a lawsuit.
Foster v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Dist. Court, WD Pennsylvania 2012 – Google Scholar.
This is a dispute between a lawyer and his legal malpractice insurer. One of the major trends in recent years is the coverage lawsuit filed by the insurance company against the lawyer. Legal malpractice insurance is usually purchased for a one-year period. The insurer agrees to indemnify and defend the insured against any and all claims arising in that year and only that year. The policies are known as “claims made” policies, which means the insurance company must receive the claim during the policy period or there is no coverage.
Miranda v. Said, Iowa: Court of Appeals 2012 – Google Scholar.
This is an unusual case – legal malpractice in the immigration setting. Plaintiffs won a verdict at the trial but appealed on the grounds that the trial court wrongfully barred their claims for mental distress damages, punitive damages and lost chance damages.
IN RE GLEASON, Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2012 – Google Scholar.
A bankruptcy lawyer was unhappy with a ruling. What he did next netted him a 60 day suspension from practicing before the bankruptcy court.
The lawyer wrote a letter to the judge and included a bottle of wine with the letter. The result was a legal ethics mess and a suspension.
Harkins v. Paxton, Mich: Court of Appeals 2012 – Google Scholar.
This is a legal malpractice case. Plaintiffs (referred to as “the Judges”) claimed that they lost an underlying case (a Section 1983 action) because of the negligence of their attorney. The attorney, who was retained by an insurance company, moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. He argued that there was no attorney-client relationship, apparently because he was retained by the insurance company.
The trial court granted the motion, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed. It explained:
This is a disciplinary case against Herbert Arthur Bates, an attorney in Illinois. Bates was retained by a convicted criminal to handle his appeal. Bates was paid $10,000. Unfortunately, he missed numerous deadlines and the appeal was dismissed. He also failed to return the transcripts to the inmate so the inmate could do the appeal by himself. The ARDC Hearing Board recommended a suspension of eighteen months. Bates ultimately refunded the money he was paid to handle the appeal.
The Panel explains:
This case illustrates one of the problems with the ARDC process. The underlying conduct took place in 2004. The ARDC filed a complaint against the respondent in December 2008! She answered in February 2009, but the case did not come to hearing until January 2012. The decision was issued on August 24, 2012.
Royster v. McNamara, 723 SE 2d 122 – NC: Court of Appeals 2012 – Google Scholar.
This is a legal malpractice case arising out of a litigation matter. The plaintiff, Royster, was a defendant in the underlying case, a fraud case.
Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog