On Feb. 20, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gunn v. Minton that legal-malpractice cases are best left to state courts rather than federal courts. But what happens when a defendant firm indicates that it would rather stay in federal court? Baker Botts is about to find out.
In 2010, a former client sued Baker Botts in U.S. District Court for the Northern District in Dallas, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Axcess International Inc. alleged in its complaint that Baker Botts failed to inform it that the firm had a conflict: The firm was pursuing a patent for a competitor at the same time it represented Axcess in a patent application for a product in the same industry for the same invention.
This content has been archived.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]
