Tag Archives: legal malpractice
Who Can Be Sued For Malicious Prosecution?
The law says that liability ultimately lies with those “responsible” for engaging in malicious prosecution. However, liability does not necessarily attach to everyone involved in the relevant legal action or proceeding. PARTIES TO LEGAL ACTIONS MAY BE HELD LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. Individuals (or entities) that unsuccessfully prosecute a legal action or engage in legal processes under inappropriate circumstances… Read More »
Certain Client Behaviors Provide a Defense to Legal Malpractice
In some situations, the client’s conduct may provide (or contribute to) a lawyer’s defenses in a malpractice case. While “blaming the client” may feel unfair to some people (especially clients), there are situations where the client’s behavior legitimately excuses or contributes to the lawyer’s negligence in ways that create a partial (or complete) defense for… Read More »
Other Situations that Toll the Statute of Limitations on Malpractice
In addition to the situations we’ve discussed in previous posts, California law recognizes a few additional, special situations where the statute of limitations for filing a legal malpractice action is tolled. To briefly review before we look more closely at these situations: — A Statute of Limitations is a law (a “statute”) which limits the amount of time… Read More »
Tolling the Statute of Limitations During Continuing Representation
GENERALLY, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS TOLLED FOR THE DURATION OF THE ATTORNEY’S REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT.* *However, some exceptions do exist, as we will discuss below. The statute of limitations on malpractice is generally tolled for the duration of the attorney’s representation of the client in the ongoing matter where the malpractice occurred…. Read More »
Tolling the Statute of Limitations on Malpractice
WHEN DOES A CLIENT “DISCOVER” LEGAL MALPRACTICE FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? A client has “discovered” an attorney’s malpractice for statute of limitations purposes when the client knows or should have known about the lawyer’s wrongful act or omission. The client does not have to realize that the wrongful act constitutes “negligence” or “malpractice”… Read More »
Understanding the Statute of Limitations in Legal Malpractice Cases, Part 2
To read this article from the beginning, click here for Part 1: WHAT DOES “TOLLING” MEAN? A statute that is “tolled” is effectively “paused.” With regard to the statute of limitations (a law that limits the amount of time a plaintiff has to bring a lawsuit against a defendant) any facts or situations that “toll”… Read More »
Understanding the Statute of Limitations in Legal Malpractice Cases (Part 1)
WHAT IS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? A statute of limitations is a law (a “statute”) that limits the amount of time a plaintiff has to bring a legal claim against a defendant. In cases involving legal malpractice (professional negligence) the statute of limitations controls how much time the allegedly injured plaintiff has to bring a case… Read More »
Emotional Distress in Legal Malpractice Cases
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES ARE NOT NORMALLY AVAILABLE IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS Some lawsuits, and some types of claims, allow a plaintiff to recover (or attempt to recover) damages to compensate for emotional distress (and resulting injuries) suffered as a result of a defendant’s wrongful conduct. The general rule in California is that damages for… Read More »
Punitive Damages in Attorney Malpractice Actions
WHAT ARE PUNITIVE DAMAGES? Punitive damages are a form of damages courts can order defendants (including defendant attorneys, in proper circumstances) to pay to prevailing plaintiffs. Punitive damages are monetary in nature, and represent amounts in excess of damages actually suffered by the plaintiff. Although punitive damage awards are not available in all cases (in fact,… Read More »
Understanding Damages in Legal Malpratice Cases (Part 1)
DAMAGES ARE A MANDATORY ELEMENT OF A PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE. If the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that (s)he has actually suffered damage (as a result of the attorney’s breach of a legally recognized duty), the plaintiff cannot prevail, even if the attorney did actually breach a legally recognized duty to the plaintiff. This is true… Read More »
