You're Facing a Malpractice Claim; Don't Make a Bad Situation Worse
As a matter of law, a mistake made in an attorney-client relationship does not equal liability for legal malpractice.
December 18, 2017 at 01:34 PM
6 minute read
Receiving a legal-malpractice claim threatening potential litigation can be scary. While many attorneys take steps to avoid such claims, few have a plan for what to do after they receive one. Reviewing any applicable legal-malpractice policy is a good place to start to identify an attorney's obligations and formulate a plan, but there are additional considerations to address.
Sometimes, attorneys respond to claims in ways that complicate the situation and make it hard to avoid litigation. Indeed, an early misstep may increase risks of significant exposure and defense costs. Here are four points that attorneys can address early when faced with a legal-malpractice claim to avoid making a bad situation worse.
Not Every Mistake Is Malpractice
An attorney's duty to keep clients informed generally includes a duty to self-report material mistakes impacting the representation. However, there is a fine line between reporting “just the facts” and admitting legal malpractice. The former may help meet an ethical obligation, while the latter may lead to a malpractice claim.
Attorneys who fail to timely report material mistakes may face significant risks, including the potential tolling of the statute of limitations, possible exposure to a conflict of interest claim (based on the conflict between the client's interests and the attorney's interests), and in some cases, bar grievances. Further, concealment of a material mistake from a client may only give a client and malpractice counsel more incentive to file suit.
On the other hand, there may be serious consequences for attorneys admitting legal malpractice when malpractice has not occurred. Obviously, such admissions can make defending the lawsuit on the issue of liability very difficult. Less obvious is that an admission can constitute a violation of the “no admissions” clause of the typical legal-malpractice insurance policy, negating insurance coverage.
Indeed, as a matter of law, a mistake made in an attorney-client relationship does not equal liability for legal malpractice. Data confirm that many legal-malpractice claims are without merit. Elements of duty and causation, among others, impose a significant burden on a plaintiff to prove much more than just the existence of a mistake. However, an attorney who tells a client that a mistake constituted malpractice may create liability where none otherwise existed.
In practice, it is prudent for attorneys to timely report any material adverse development in a representation to the impacted client, also disclosing whether the development arises out of the attorney's action (or inaction). An attorney can advise that there has been a mistake, but stop short of conceding any malpractice. Because the line is so fine, attorneys may also consider consulting other counsel before reporting to the client. An objective view from a disinterested attorney can save a lot of defense costs and exposure.
A Claim May Not Lead To A Lawsuit
Attorneys can try not to overreact to a client asserting a claim. A client expressing dissatisfaction with a representation or threatening a suit does not mean that such a suit will happen. Indeed, clients may threaten a claim because they are unhappy with a result or want to avoid paying a bill. Neither scenario necessarily supports a viable legal-malpractice lawsuit.
Along with a heavy legal burden, financial and other pressures may also prevent a client from filing suit. Some states, like Georgia, require expert testimony, including an affidavit from an expert, prior to filing a legal-malpractice complaint. Therefore, early on, a plaintiff must present proof of some negligent act or omission and must incur expert fees upfront.
As a result, it is prudent for attorneys receiving a claim to maintain a level head in assessing the strength of the claim and the likelihood that it will lead to litigation. Outside counsel can assist with this analysis.
Ignorance Is Not Bliss
At the other end of the spectrum, ignoring a legal-malpractice claim will not make it go away. While some attorneys overreact to a potential claim, others ignore a claim in hopes that the client's mind will change. This strategy is rarely effective.
Ignoring a claim may also put the attorney's legal-malpractice coverage at risk, particularly if the policy requires notice of claims or potential claims. Malpractice policies often require insureds to provide notice of any circumstance that might give rise to a claim. Even if a client has not yet initiated litigation, the threat of a claim may warrant reporting. Further, many policies provide coverage based on when a claim is reported to the insurer. When the attorney provides notice may control whether the claim falls within a policy's effective dates. This may be significant where there has been a lapse in coverage or where multiple policies could apply.
Any Resolution May Require Insurer Consent
Attorneys can consider early settlement opportunities for a malpractice claim prior to the filing of a lawsuit, especially if the amount required to settle is de minimis compared to the costs and exposure of the claim. However, the typical legal-malpractice insurance policy prohibits an attorney from making a settlement offer without the insurance company's consent.
If the applicable policy contains such language, efforts to settle a malpractice claim may need to be coordinated with the attorney's insurance company. The risks of failing to do so are significant and could leave an attorney without coverage for the claim.
A malpractice claim is a negative situation but does not need to turn into a nightmare. An attorney receiving a malpractice claim can soften the blow by facing the situation promptly and considering the issues above.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons US in Atlanta and Washington and serves on the firm's U.S. board of directors. She represents and advises lawyers and insurers on complex claims and is co-chair of Dentons' global insurance sector team.
Alanna Clair is a senior managing associate at Dentons US in Washington and focuses on professional liability defense. Shari and Alanna are co-authors of “The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance.”
This article was prepared with assistance from Keshia Lipscomb, an associate in the Atlanta office of Dentons US LLP.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCould Everything Be Alright Without Me Knowing? The State of Professionalism Among Attorneys
Trying to Reason With Hurricane Season: Mediating First Party Property Insurance Claims
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250