Articles Tagged with Negligence

Published on:

Sometimes, for reasons that are obscure, the ARDC takes a set of facts that appear to prove negligence and makes a disciplinary complaint out of them. In the case of Barbara Ann Susman, the ARDC charged an immigration lawyer with: (a) failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to promptly inform the client of an adverse decision, failing to keep the client reasonably informed, making a false statement to the ARDC, conduct involving dishonesty, failing to respond to the ARDC’s demands for information and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The facts demonstrated that Susman was hired by David Yonan to file an appeal in an immigration matter. On September 1, 2010, the Immigration Service denied his petition for permanent residence based on his status as an alien of extraordinary ability. Yonan had until October 4, 2010, to appeal. Yonan met with Susman but did not promptly pay the retainer she requested. On Saturday, October 2, 2010, Yonan made a deposit of the amount of the filing fee. Susman then took the appeal to Federal Express and believed that Federal Express would deliver the appellate papers by Monday, October 4. Some months later, the USCIS rejected the appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal was not received until October 5, 2010. Yonan declined to appeal that decision. Later, he retained another lawyer and moved to reopen his appeal.

The Panel ruled that the ARDC failed to prove a lack of diligence because Yonan did not pay the filing fee until the last minute. The Panel noted that the evidence showed that Susman acted with diligence:

Published on:

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: