In the Jan. 14 article entitled, “Time to Say Good-bye to the ‘Suit Within a Suit,’” the author posits, from the plaintiff’s perspective, that the courts should dispense with a suit-within-a-suit method of proving the proximate cause element of a legal malpractice action because “it has become a procedural and evidentiary morass during discovery and trial that frequently leads to bizarre and unjust results.” The author further advocates for the relaxing of burdens of proof and evidentiary rules that have been the fixture of civil litigation for decades:
And so, when discussing settlement, let’s not insist that an expert report adhere to the rigidities of the rules of evidence that govern the trial, or that, as a precondition of meaningful settlement efforts, the expert opinion first be tested so that it strictly complies with the increasingly demanding requirements of the net opinion rule. The net opinion rule is appropriate for trial and governs, as it should, admissibility of evidence at trial—but it throttles settlement.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
