Attorney Neglect: Achieved it Cost you Your Case?


Statistics show that legal malpractice claims have become more frequent for the last three decades. There are several instances where a client loses confidence in the abilities of his lawyer because the latter made matters worse instead of providing a resolution to the problem. If you suffered damages due to your solicitor's wrongful conduct, may it be due to his neglect or purposive act, you may consider the option of bringing a legal malpractice action. However, appearing a legal malpractice claim could be challenging as it often involves extensive search for appropriate arguments and corroborating evidence. Despite the existence of actual damages, there are other factors that need to be examined to determine whether a claim of legal malpractice should be filed.

If the client can prove that the attorney's neglect or wrongful act resulted in damages, such damages could be restored by filing a legal malpractice lawsuit. However, there are cases where damages are not easily ascertainable. In such cases, the California Great Court held that recovery of damages could nevertheless be worth even if the existence and explanation for such damages are difficult to determine. On the most part, however, damages that derive from rumours or pure threat of future harm are usually not worth by California courts.

Clients are often better with the recovery of so-called "direct" damages Real estate attorney. These are damages which were the direct results of an attorney's neglect or misconduct. For instance, in a case where an attorney wrongfully advises his client to file for bankruptcy and sell his home for a price reduction than its market value, the court is likely to award the client damages to the extent of what he lost from the sale. In another case, a California court worth damages to a physician due to the loss of his good reputation and the increase in premiums for his medical malpractice insurance due to his attorney's neglect.


If the client can show clear and convincing evidence that the attorney can be held subject to fraud, malice or oppression, even punitive damages may be restored, see California City Code § 3294. However, client-plaintiffs who have been rejected the award of compensatory damages will not be permitted punitive damages. In general, it is more difficult to prove the existence of punitive damages as courts usually require specific facts to prove that the attorney acted with oppression, fraud or malice. In one rare case, the court of appeals worth punitive damages due to an attorney's "conscious neglect of litigant's safety". In that case, the attorney, who was also doctor, advised his client to postpone the surgery in order to strengthen their medical malpractice lawsuit even though he knew about the desperation of a surgery.

Furthermore, if the client-plaintiff lost his claim for punitive damages in the underlying action, it is very unlikely that courts will award him punitive damages in a legal malpractice lawsuit. The California Great Court held that such damages derive from rumours and plaintiffs should not be permitted damages that cannot be proven with assurance. Otherwise, lawyers would be exposed to more risks of liability, resulting in an increase in the cost of malpractice insurance.

Weergaven: 1

Opmerking

Je moet lid zijn van Beter HBO om reacties te kunnen toevoegen!

Wordt lid van Beter HBO

© 2024   Gemaakt door Beter HBO.   Verzorgd door

Banners  |  Een probleem rapporteren?  |  Algemene voorwaarden