Category Archives: Malpractice Defenses

Family Feud leads to Privity Lesson

A somewhat bizarre family feud presents an interesting evaluation of the general requirement of privity in order to maintain a legal malpractice claim. Consider the circumstances of when an attorney is appointed by the court to administer an estate. Who is the client? A Kansas appellate court examined this situation in Schroeder v. Brewer, 2017 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 101 (Kan. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017) which addresses whether an attorney may be held liable for legal malpractice while representing an Estate “against” the beneficiaries of the estate.

Continue Reading....

Judicial Scrutiny of Frivolous Litigation Statute

Nobody wants to be named as a defendant in a lawsuit. Litigation is expensive, time-consuming, upsetting, and often intimidating for clients. Being dragged into a suit is even more frustrating when the defendant knows the claims are entirely without merit. Defendants who are the victim of frivolous litigation are not without recourse, however. Where the underlying lawsuit is unwarranted, without evidentiary support, or presented for an improper purpose, such as harassment or delay, defendants may have the opportunity to seek damages against the plaintiff and the lawyers who brought the claim.

Continue Reading....

Common Knowledge Exception to Affidavit of Merit Rule

Your friends at Professional Liability Matters often focus on interpretation of Affidavit of Merit (“AOM”) requirements. As our handy table shows, each state has its own rules as to AOM requirements and other details regarding substance and form. These rules are of critical importance to many malpractice claims. Most states require an AOM from a professional within the same field certifying that the malpractice case has merit. This is a necessary gateway function so that litigants cannot sue professionals without any justification. Implicit in this requirement is that the typical fact-finder may not understand the appropriate standard of care, and therefore must rely upon professionals within the field. However, in some cases, an expert opinion may not be necessary to understand how the standard of care was breached. In some states this qualifies as an exception to the AOM requirement. Take for example the following case out of New Jersey which applied the common knowledge exception to the AOM requirement.

Continue Reading....

First Impressions Are Lasting: New Defense Available in Delaware for Professionals

In a case of first impression before the Delaware Chancery Court, the defense of in pari delicto was applied in favor of an auditor to defeat claims brought by the receiver of several insolvent insurance entities. This decision sets important and favorable precedent for the defense of accounting firms and other third parties when they become implicated in cases alleging corporate wrongdoing on the part of other defendants.

Continue Reading....