Thursday Attorney Malpractice Update 1/3/08
Posted: January 3rd, 2008
By: Andrew Bluestone, Esq.
Category: Attorney Malpractice, The News Beat

THIS WEEK’S CASE IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE

We continue to discuss Barnett v. Schwartz, 2007 NY Slip Op 09712, Appellate Division, Second Department, Decided 12/11/07.  Last week we talked about the definition of “but for” and how it related to “a” or “the” proximate cause.

The case also stands for a somewhat novel principal.  Prejudgment interest appears to be permitted in legal malpractice, whether it would have been permitted in the underlying case or not. This wide sweeping pronouncement appears to apply not only to recognized breach of contract causes of action, but to personal injury legal malpractice damages, too.

“CPLR 5001 operates to permit an award of prejudgment interest from the date of the accrual of the malpractice action in actions seeking damages for attorney malpractice”, citing Horstmann v, Grasso PC, 210 AD2d 671; Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 444 (2007)

THIS WEEK’S STORY IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE

States continue to discuss whether there should be mandatory legal malpractice insurance, or in the alternative, mandatory insurance disclosure.  From a public policy point of view, each proposal has the effect of creating greater protection for the public.

In California, an original proposal to require disclosure has been watered down to situations in which “it is reasonably foreseeable that the attorney will represent a client for more than 4 hours.”

Right now, the California State Bar Committee on Regulation, Admissions and Discipline is worried about the reaction of small firms and solos.  State Bar Governor John Dutton said: “They know this is going to do very little but adversely affect them.”

For more on legal malpractice check out the New York Attorney Malpractice Blog.

Post a Comment   |   (0) Comments  |   Permanent Link  Go Back

Comments
There are no comments for this post.