Get Legal Malpractice Prevention Ideas More Often

July 25th, 2011

Don’t have  Twitter or Facebook?  Send us a blank email at jhanna@tlie.org with the subject “Send Twitter to Email” and we’ll send you our Twitters as they occur.  Our Twitter posting include short loss prevention tips and links to interesting articles and resources on line.  There seldom will be more than 2 twitters a day. You can unsubscribe directly from the email if you get tired of receiving the emails.  You can see what our Twitter feed looks like at http://twitter.com/legalmal.  

Have Google Account or Facebook (you don’t have to like us) and want our Twitters for the past day in your email?   Login to twilert.com, put in “legalmal” for the search term and enter the time of day you want the email. 

Would you like an email once a week with a malpractice prevention tip?  Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company (a company like TLIE in Florida) sends out a tip weekly.  To join their list, contact Nancy Stuparich (nancys@flmic.com).  Archived tips are available online at http://www.flmic.com/risk-management-tips.

Documents for CLE 9/18/2012

September 18th, 2012

Here are links for documents for the CLE on 9/18/2012.

PowerPoint: www.tlie.org/newsletter/uploads/Cowles.pdf
Opinion 610: www.tlie.org/newsletter/uploads/EO610.pdf
Opinion 611: www.tlie.org/newsletter/uploads/EO611.pdf
Stats: www.tlie.org/newsletter/uploads/stats.pdf.

Materials for Medicare Seminar

March 30th, 2012

Here are links for the Medicare Seminar materials:

King paper: http://www.tlie.org/newsletter/uploads/medicareking.pdf

Luccia paper:  http://www.tlie.org/newsletter/uploads/medicareluccia.pdf

Flowchart of recovery process:

http://www.msprc.info/processes/GHP%20flowchart.pdf

Law Firm E-Discovery Malpractice Claim

June 27th, 2011

A malpractice case recently filed in California, J-M Manufacturing v. McDermott, Will & Emery, alleges that a law firm committed two wrongs in e-discovery. First, the firm, using outside contractors, allegedly missed 3700 documents that should have been withheld in discovery. The exact nature of the mistake that caused the failure to claim privilege is not clear. The cause may have been an improper word search conducted on the 250,000 documents maintained by 160 custodians, or that attorneys contracted to review the documents for privileged materials made mistakes. The law firm spot checked the work done by the contract attorneys. For more information on the possible nature of the error, see this article. It is not clear from the initial filings whether the damages alleged are due to an unfavorable outcome in the case, or from disclosure of information to other parties that would not have otherwise been disclosed.

The second claim is that the law firm marked up the price of the outside contractor services to the client. Some of those services may have been for contract lawyers, and some for technical vendors. A recent Texas ethics opinion, Opinion 577, concludes that lawyers may mark up the amount paid to a “firm lawyer,” but not to a “non-firm lawyer” unless the client consents. What constitutes “non-firm lawyer” is not completely clear from the opinion, though “contract lawyers” are listed as being possible firm lawyers, depending on a number of factors including work location. ABA Opinion 08-451 suggests that if a firm provides no infrastructure support for outside lawyers, then no mark up of outside attorney charges is permitted without client consent. Mark up of expenses above actual cost is not permitted unless the client consents in any event. A secondary issue suggested by the Texas ethics opinion is that clients should have notice of which non-firm lawyers will be working on their matters. It is possible that the client in J-M Manufacturing will seek a return of all legal fees based on a breach of fiduciary duty as well as the marked up amount on improperly marked up legal fees and expenses.

Advisers Not Liable Under Rule 10b-5 for Statements Made By Securities Issuers

June 22nd, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court in Janus Capitol v. First Derivative Traders, in a 5-4, decision has ruled that advisers to securities issuers are not liable for statements made specifically by the issuers under Rule 10b-5, but rather only for their own direct statements.  The majority opinion suggests that advisers, such as lawyers, are like speechwriters:  the responsibility under 10b-5 lies with the entity making the statement, not the preparer of the statement.   The opinion seems to close a possible hole in the Stoneridge case that was left for intentional misstatements authored by advisers.

While this may limit liability for lawyers under federal statutes, state law causes of action may still be available for investors or the client.  For lawyers, the client may make a legal  malpractice claim based on faulty advice that certain statements were or were not necessary.  In pari delicto defenses, arguments that the client acted with intent to violate the law, may help insulate lawyers in some of these cases.