Risks Associated with Case Valuations
An attorney in a litigation is sometimes looked to by the client as something of a soothsayer. What's likely to happen? What's the verdict going…
December 19, 2018 at 09:00 AM
6 minute read
An attorney in a litigation is sometimes looked to by the client as something of a soothsayer. What's likely to happen? What's the verdict going to be? How is the judge going to rule? How much is this case worth? It is very routine for attorneys to offer such opinions or valuations, which may be crucial elements in determining how to try or resolve a case.
However, as many attorneys appreciate, the result in a case is rarely (if ever) assured. Instead, the assessment of the client's potential liability can involve a multitude of factors, ranging from an analysis of the applicable legal principles to a consideration of the likely composition of the jury. In the end, the attorney's assessment often relies on subjective factors in weighing the potential outcomes and the strength of each side's claims and defenses.
Inevitably, no matter how carefully the attorney considers the issues, there are times when the outcome or verdict may dramatically differ from the attorney's valuation. In such cases, the clients (or their insurers) may blame the attorneys for not seeing it coming, especially where the client relied on the attorney's valuation or advice in deciding not to settle the case prior to trial.
While having an unhappy client is challenge enough, the client could conceivably assert a claim for malpractice based on the attorney's allegedly inaccurate valuation of the claim. In some instances, it may be that the attorney overlooked a critical legal element or other detail that might have impacted the valuation; in others, the attorney can do everything right, and there can still be an unforeseen outcome.
Below are some of the issues relevant to a determination of whether an attorney's inaccurate valuation could create potential malpractice liability.
What is the Standard?
Although bar rules are not by themselves determinative of the applicable standard of care for attorneys in Texas, they can help shape that standard. The question of whether an attorney might be liable for errors in valuing a claim implicates Rule 1.01 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that a lawyer generally should not accept representations that the lawyer knows or should know are beyond their competence. Comment 1 to Rule 1.01 states that “[c]ompetent representation contemplates appropriate application by the lawyer of that legal knowledge, skill and training, reasonable thoroughness in the study and analysis of the law and facts, and reasonable attentiveness to the responsibilities owed to the client.”
However, what constitutes legal knowledge of competent practitioners could vary based on the customs of the attorneys in the jurisdiction. For example, if jury verdict reports are widely relied upon by attorneys in a particular area, then an attorney may want to consult such reports when assessing a defendant's potential liability in a personal injury case.
At the same time, courts in some jurisdictions have noted that jury verdict reports can be of little value because it is nearly impossible to find “apples to apples” comparisons between prior cases and the case at issue. Instead, it may be sufficient for an experienced attorney to thoroughly review the facts and, relying on her or his experience with similar cases, make an educated conclusion regarding the client's likelihood of success.
The Benefits of the Professional Judgment Rule
Attorneys facing a claim arising out of an inaccurate valuation can consider another line of defense: the professional judgment rule. The professional judgment rule provides that an attorney is generally not liable for those acts or omissions in the conduct of litigation that are based on an honest exercise of professional judgment.
The professional judgment rule arises from the premise that, after consideration of the facts and law, an attorney's best judgment and recommendation is due some deference, especially where there are multiple options for the legal strategy. However, the rule generally will not excuse the attorney's failure to thoroughly consider the relevant facts. In other words, even if the attorney's conclusion regarding the value of the case is defensible under the circumstances, it will not preclude courts from considering how the attorney reached that conclusion and reviewing whether the attorney's judgment was truly informed.
Accordingly, when providing a valuation, it is helpful for attorneys to articulate the key reasons for the attorney's opinion and the variables that may affect the case. Having this information in writing can act as a shield in the event that the client later questions whether the attorney took adequate steps in considering the client's potential liability.
Insurance Issues
An attorney's potential liability for an error in a valuation can be complicated where a client's insurer is involved. Insurance policies typically require that the insured obtain the insurer's consent prior to settling a claim and to keep the insurer informed as to developments in the case and risks. When the insurer reviews a potential settlement of a claim against its insured, the insurer is generally called to consider whether trying the case instead of settling would place an unreasonable risk of a judgment in excess of the policy limits against the insured.
In such a situation, the insurer may ask defense counsel to prepare a valuation for the insurer's use in determining whether to consent to a settlement. Although this could suggest some direct relationship between the insurer and the defense counsel, the fact remains that in many states, even when the insurer relies on defense counsel's valuation, the insurer's duties are non-delegable. This usually means that the insurer will engage in its own analysis of the merits of the claim against the insured in order to determine an appropriate settlement value, relying on the information provided by defense counsel. Thus, the failure of defense counsel to properly or thoroughly assess the risks and liabilities facing the client could create an issue between the client and the insurer.
Luckily, most courts do not require that attorneys accurately predict the future when it comes to valuing claims. However, attorneys who fail to give a valuation its due consideration could create unnecessary risk in the event that the case goes south.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons and serves on the firm's US 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 partner at Dentons and focuses on professional liability defense. Shari and Alanna are co-authors of “The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance.”
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 All'Virtue Begets Virtue': Tips for Practicing Law (and Living) Ethically
7 minute readTrending Stories
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