Legal Malpractice—Analysis and Defense
Brian P. Heermance and Christopher P. Keenoy write: Litigating a legal malpractice case is generally more complex than a simple tort action but, at its core, is governed by many of the same principles. The starting point is to simply examine the elements of any negligence claim—duty, breach, causation, and damages.
October 01, 2015 at 10:14 PM
9 minute read
Litigating a legal malpractice case is generally more complex than a simple tort action but, at its core, is governed by many of the same principles. The starting point is to simply examine the elements of any negligence claim—duty, breach, causation, and damages.
Duty
Like any negligence claim, an action sounding in legal malpractice begins with the question of whether the attorney owed the plaintiff a duty of care. This element is critical in two ways – establishing the presence of a relationship with the client; and establishing the lack of a relationship with others.
Typically, attorneys have entered into a retainer agreement with their clients. However, the execution of a formal retainer agreement is not a prerequisite to establish duty as courts will look to the words and actions of the parties to determine the existence of a relationship.1 Additionally, payment of a fee is not a requirement to establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship sufficient to create a duty of care. As such, the fact that no retainer was signed and/or the fact that no fee was paid does not necessarily insulate an attorney from a legal malpractice claim.
The duty/privity requirement ensures that an attorney's obligations toward his client are unaffected by worrying about the impact of his representation to others. It also serves as protection for attorneys from defamation suits brought by adversaries or others as statements made in the course of litigation are entitled to absolute privilege.2 Attorneys are afforded absolute protection with regard to relevant statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings so that they may speak freely and zealously represent their clients without fear of reprisal or financial hazard. It should be noted, however, that privity does not provide an absolute shield for an attorney from all liability from others. For example, an attorney may be liable to a non-client if he perpetrated a fraud or assisted his client in committing a fraud.3
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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