For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Ethics/Professional Responsibility,
Law Practice

Dec. 22, 2017

Attorneys as defendants in 2017

Catch up on this year's legal malpractice developments.

Kenneth C. Feldman

Partner
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP

Certified Specialist in Legal Malpractice

633 W 5th St Ste 4000
Los Angeles , CA 90071

Phone: (213) 250-1800

Fax: (213) 250-7900

Email: Ken.Feldman@lewisbrisbois.com

Loyola Law School

Kenneth is firm-wide chair of the legal malpractice defense group at Lewis Brisbois. He is a certified specialist, legal malpractice law, State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization, and is vice chair of the State Bar Legal Malpractice Law Advisory Commission. Mr. Feldman is the author of "California Legal Malpractice & Malicious Prosecution Liability Handbook."

See more...

Alex A. Graft

Partner
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

Email: alex.graft@lewisbrisbois.com

Alex is a certified specialist in legal malpractice law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. He represents a wide range of professionals in addition to defending lawyers.

See more...

2017 IN REVIEW

When "continuous representation" ceases for purposes of evaluating the statute of limitations, the limits of attorney disqualification, and issues concerning privileges continued to be of interest to the appellate courts in 2017. The Court of Appeal also broke ground assessing the actual innocence element required in malpractice cases arising out of post-conviction criminal representation, and the California Supreme Court addres...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up

Related Content

Anti-SLAPP

Dickinson v. Cosby

Judgment granting anti-SLAPP motion reversed where statements are not opinions but rather state or imply a 'provably false assertion of fact.'

Anti-SLAPP

Optional Capital Inc. v. Das Corporation et al.

The 'law of the case doctrine' does not apply to a prior decision involving different parties and issues.

Attorneys

Jones v. Whisenand

'Actual innocence' requirement for legal malpractice claim does not apply to Sexually Violent Predator Act proceedings especially where offender's SVPA proceedings remain pending.

Attorneys

Flake v. Neumiller & Beardslee

Malpractice action is time-barred where it was filed more than one year after attorney filed motion to withdraw, but within one year of court's granting of that motion.

Anti-SLAPP

Parrish v. Latham & Watkins

Probable cause is established where a trial court rules in favor of the plaintiff in the underlying action, even if a subsequent ruling overturns the initial ruling.

Attorneys

McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (Hausman)

Disqualification of law firm appropriate following firm's violation of ethical obligations regarding use of inadvertently disclosed privileged email.

Attorneys

Lynn v. George

‘Potential’ attorney-client relationship with ‘alleged’ partnership is insufficient to disqualify attorney as counsel.

Attorneys

Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove v. Superior Court

Successive representation rules generally do not bar attorney from continuing to represent insider of closely held company in a derivative lawsuit pursuant to ‘Forrest v. Baeza.’

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton v. J-M Manufacturing

1) May a court rely on non-legislative expressions of public policy to overturn an arbitration award on illegality grounds? (2) Can a sophisticated consumer of legal services, represented...



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.