The Challenges of Proving Causation in a Litigation Malpractice Claim
Many of us remember the old adage: "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again." Recently the Texas Supreme Court noted in Rogers v. Zanetti, 518 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. 2017): "Legal malpractice is a land of second chances."
September 01, 2017 at 10:36 PM
10 minute read
Many of us remember the old adage: “If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.” Recently the Texas Supreme Court noted in Rogers v. Zanetti, 518 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. 2017): “Legal malpractice is a land of second chances.”
However, Rogers illustrates how difficult it can be to recover on a second chance. In Rogers, an investor sought to acquire a majority ownership interest in a home health care business. The investor retained a business attorney to draft an agreement to acquire a majority interest in the business from the founders. After the transaction closed, the investor did not follow through with his commitment to invest in the business, but instead acquired control of the accounts of the business and began transferring funds out of the business. The founders sued the investor who requested a recommendation from his business lawyer for a litigator to represent him in the lawsuit. The business lawyer recommended a litigator from his firm. The litigator represented the investor for a while. Later the litigator and the business lawyer withdrew after requesting the investor find new counsel which he did. In a jury trial, the jury decided that the founders had been defrauded, and the jury awarded almost $2.5 million in damages. The trial court declared the investment agreement void because it was procured by fraud, was unconscionable, and lacked consideration. The trial results were affirmed on appeal.
The investor sued the business lawyer, the litigator and their firm for malpractice. The investor claimed the business lawyer had negligently drafted the investment agreement, the litigator should not have accepted the representation because it caused the litigator not to name the business lawyer and their firm as responsible parties, and because the litigator failed to designate a rebuttal damages witness. The lawyers filed a motion for summary judgment on causation. The trial court granted the motion and the court of appeals affirmed.
This content has been archived.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 AllThe Buzbee Law Firm Accused of Client Abuse in Two Louisiana Lawsuits
4 minute readDLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
3 minute readTrending 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