13 results for 'cat:"Negligence" AND cat:"Legal Malpractice"'.
J. McClarty finds the lower court properly dismissed a client’s legal malpractice action against her former attorney. The client retained the attorney to represent her in a matter concerning a vehicle accident and subsequent unsatisfactory repairs to her motorhome. The attorney took the clients retainer, but avoided communicating with her and never filed any action on behalf of the client. After the client complained, the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility placed the attorney on diversion pending the completion of a practice and professional enhancement program, and he returned the retainer. The client then filed the instant action arguing legal malpractice, but at hearing she did not present any evidence supporting her claim of negligence against him or deficient performance. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: McClarty, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: E2023-00930-COA-R3-CV, Categories: Damages, negligence, legal Malpractice
J. Cates finds the lower court properly found in favor of an attorney in this matter of legal malpractice and properly denied a property owner’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the evidence. The property owner retained the attorney for guidance related to a proposed real estate development project. The attorney testified that he told the property owner that he did not believe developing the property on his own was a wise business venture, and that he explained the pros and cons of incorporating the project to limit the property owner’s exposure to liability. But the property owner says he was never advised on incorporation or on a pipeline easement that ran through the property, as supported by evidence, that the court should enter a judgment in his favor, and that he should be granted a new trial for damages. The instant court finds that the evidence presented was subject to interpretation, and will not second guess the findings of the jury. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Cates, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 220818, Categories: Real Estate, negligence, legal Malpractice
J. Rice declines to dismiss the investors' lawsuit accusing the law firm of sending the former's $1 million investment to an untrustworthy bank, resulting in the funds going missing. The investors establish an injury-in-fact by showing that the untrustworthy bank did not return the money, with nine of the 11 investors losing $100,000 or more, while the rest lost between $25,000 and $50,000. The law firm accepted responsibility for overseeing the money and assuring the investors that it could not be withdrawn or misused without the investors' express authorization.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Washington, Judge: Rice, Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv227, NOS: Other Personal Property Damage - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Fiduciary Duty, negligence, legal Malpractice
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court improperly denied the law firm's motion to dismiss the client's affirmative defenses, except for overbilling, and grants the client's cross-motion asserting that its guaranty only applies to fees and expenses incurred after the February 2017 engagement letter. The client's reading of the guaranty was reasonable given the text of the agreement as a whole. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: January 10, 2024, Case #: 00060, Categories: negligence, legal Malpractice, Attorney Fees
J. Hollander denies an attorney and law firms’ motion to dismiss professional negligence allegations brought by a bankruptcy client. The client retained the attorney to represent her when she filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, but he refused to seek relief from the stay and continued to bill her, prompting the current suit. The client has sufficiently alleged a claim to satisfy the standard that the attorney and its firm did in fact attempt to collect pre-petition debt.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Hollander, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv2639, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: negligence, legal Malpractice, Contract
J. Bourliot finds that the trial court properly dismissed the client's legal malpractice suit against the attorney because the complained of conduct is within the scope of the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The claims relate to a communication by the attorney "in or pertaining to a judicial proceeding." Also, the claims are time-barred. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Bourliot, Filed On: August 1, 2023, Case #: 14-22-00305-CV, Categories: Anti-slapp, negligence, legal Malpractice
J. Zimmerer finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the law firm parties in a suit alleging they mishandled a patent application for an inventor and his entities. One of the entities had been terminated and thus lacked standing to file suit. Also, the inventor is barred from recovering lost revenues of the entities by the "corporate injury rule." Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerer, Filed On: July 13, 2023, Case #: 14-22-00410-CV, Categories: Patent, negligence, legal Malpractice
J. Hagedorn finds the the court of appeals rightfully upheld the circuit court's findings in favor of the corporate law firm in a legal malpractice suit from a venture capital firm and shareholders in a media company over millions of dollars in penalties and taxes they faced from the IRS after they cut a deal to sell the company's stock and assets to buyers through a middleman company, which they did because selling directly to buyers would expose them to taxes they wanted to avoid. The circuit court did not err by admitting evidence that the shareholders settled claims against two other law firms because the facts of the case fit an exception in Wisconsin law barring admission of settlement evidence and, although the circuit court incorrectly permitted the law firm's attorney to reference the settlement in his closing argument to show liability, it did not abuse its discretion by denying the shareholders' motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Hagedorn, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 2020AP806, Categories: negligence, legal Malpractice