Who Can Sue an Attorney—and How to Stop Them
Unlike some other torts, the class of plaintiffs who can bring legal malpractice claims against attorneys is fairly limited. Generally speaking, legal malpractice claims can only be raised by a limited set of people to whom an attorney owes a legal duty to exercise ordinary care, skill and diligence in the performance of professional services.
January 17, 2018 at 12:45 PM
6 minute read
Unlike some other torts, the class of plaintiffs who can bring legal malpractice claims against attorneys is fairly limited. Generally speaking, legal malpractice claims can only be raised by a limited set of people to whom an attorney owes a legal duty to exercise ordinary care, skill and diligence in the performance of professional services. However, there are other situations in which a court may find that an attorney owes a duty to nonclients or third parties.
Typically, the existence of a duty owed by an attorney to a client or third party occurs in one of three ways. First, and most commonly, an attorney will agree to undertake a legal representation for a client, often by issuing an engagement letter. In this sort of “express” attorney-client relationship, it is often indisputable that an attorney-client relationship of some kind exists.
Second, an attorney-client duty can be found in a situation in which an attorney acts in a way that causes a person to reasonably believe that the attorney is representing them. In such circumstances, an “implied” attorney-client relationship could be sufficient to sustain a legal malpractice claim. A court will typically look at whether the attorney's advice was sought and provided such that a reasonable person would believe that an attorney-client relationship existed. Indeed, the analysis often looks at the facts from the potential client's perspective.
Third, there are some common-law duties that can be owed to third parties when the professional is aware that those third parties will rely upon the professional's advice. For the doctrine of “foreseeable reliance” to apply, the attorney typically must be aware that a third party will rely on her or his advice or opinions.
There are several ways to limit or even avoid the risks that can be associated with intentional or, even, unintentional attorney-client duties. For express attorney-client relationships, most attorneys will use an engagement letter or a fee contract to specify the exact terms of the representation, thereby limiting the risk that a client will expect the attorney to take on unspecified tasks. Implied or other unintended representations can be avoided with the use of disclaimers.
Below are some steps to consider to help reduce the risk.
|Engagement Letters and Fee Contracts
To reduce the risk of claims by nonclients, an engagement letter can identify each client by name and capacity. To eliminate any misunderstanding, the engagement letter may also state that the firm does not represent any person or entity that has not been specifically identified as a client and that no duties have been undertaken or assumed for any person or entity that has not been specifically identified as a client. Such language can help avoid implied and unintended attorney-client relationships.
Another way to help reduce the risk of an unintended attorney-client relationship is to consider the use of non-assignability language in an engagement letter. This language would state that a claim for legal malpractice could not be assigned by the client to an unrelated third party. Although many jurisdictions do not permit assignments of such claims given the unique nature of the attorney-client relationship, some jurisdictions still permit assignments. By including this language, attorneys may be able to ensure that they are held only to the duties implicated by the unique attorney-client relationship.
|File Closing Letters
When it comes time to terminate an attorney-client relationship, the use of a file closing letter can help provide clear guidance to both the client and the attorney. Closing a file can impact any applicable statute of limitation and can also terminate an attorney's duty to a former client. It can cease the obligation to disclose or provide information, such as intervening change in applicable law, and helps avoid a “springing” statute of limitations.
What a file closing letter needs to include will depend on the needs of the law practice and the unique circumstances of the representation. Many will consider whether to include an accounting of all funds received, confirmation that the representation has ended (typically as of the date of the letter, if not before), notice that the attorney or law firm will no longer be providing any legal services absent a further retention, and a description of the attorney's or law firm's document retention policies.
Closing files helps marks the end of an attorney's duty, and thus is another way to limit the possibility of receiving a claim from a third party.
|Disclaimers
Generally speaking, a plaintiff cannot recover in a legal malpractice action unless there is an attorney-client relationship with the attorney-defendant. However, in some contexts, courts may find that an attorney owes duties to nonclients. One way to minimize risks of such claims is to use disclaimers when dealing with nonclients.
For implied attorney-client relationships, the attorney can communicate to the nonclient that the firm does not represent the nonclient as an attorney and that the nonclient is entitled to obtain counsel of his or her choice if he or she so desires. This may be helpful in contexts in which, for example, an attorney represents a company but not the individual employees of that company.
A disclaimer can also be used to defeat a claim of foreseeable reliance. A disclaimer, in some instances attached to a piece of work product, can alert any third party that he or she may rely upon the information at their peril. The disclaimer can also state that no duties are assumed, intended, or created by the communication. The disclaimer can also state that if the third party has not executed a fee contract or an engagement letter, the firm does not represent the third party as the third party's attorney. The third party can be encouraged to retain counsel of his or her choice.
By implementing these recommended steps, attorneys can limit or even avoid the risk of potential claims brought by a nonclient.
—This article was prepared with assistance from Craig Giometti, an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Dentons US LLP.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons US and serves on the firm's US Board of Directors. She represents and advises lawyers and insurers on complex claims, is co-chair of Dentons' global insurance sector team, and is co-author of “California Legal Malpractice Law” (2014). Alanna Clair is a senior managing associate at Dentons US 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1More Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, while Some Offer Potential for Even More
- 2OpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
- 3Saying Your Goodbyes—Ethical Obligations When Transitioning to a New Firm
- 4Womans Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
- 5Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
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