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

Mar. 9, 2022

The Burden of Proof in Settle-and-Sue Legal Malpractice Cases

See more on The Burden of Proof in Settle-and-Sue Legal Malpractice Cases

When clients are unhappy with a settlement, they often blame their attorneys, claiming that their counsel concealed pertinent facts from them, failed to properly explain settlement terms including tax implications, made an error in the case which forced them to settle, or exerted undue influence that amounted to coercion. All of these scenarios can be found in published decisions.

Lorraine M. Walsh

Law Office of Lorraine M Walsh

Legal malpractice (specialist)

1990 N California Blvd Ste 800
Walnut Creek , CA 94596

Phone: (925) 932-7014

Email: lorraine.walsh@sbcglobal.net

McGeorge School of Law

Lorraine is a State Bar certified specialist in legal malpractice Law. She currently serves as vice-chair and assistant presiding arbitrator of the State Bar Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration. She focuses her practice on controversies involving attorneys and clients which includes representation in legal malpractice actions, fee disputes and expert witness consultation and testimony on the standard of care and conduct.

See more...

When clients are unhappy with a settlement, they often blame their attorneys, claiming that their counsel concealed pertinent facts from them, failed to properly explain settlement terms including tax implications, made an error in the case which forced them to settle, or exerted undue influence that amounted to coercion. All of these scenarios can be found in published decisions.

Is it just a case of "buyer's remorse," where the client be...

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
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first 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