Have you considered the possibility that attorneys are susceptible to malpractice for failing to initiate suit in the venue most advantageous to their client? Forum shopping is a common term for the practice of initiating a claim in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Whether it’s due to the laws of that jurisdiction, a more sympathetic audience, convenience, the fact-finder, or myriad other considerations, the venue may make a big difference. But, as we learn from a recent decision, the attorney that picks the wrong door may be exposed to a malpractice suit.
In Target Strike v. Strasburger & Price, discussed here, the plaintiffs claim that the failure of their former attorneys to initiate their underlying claims in the proper jurisdiction cost them over $150 million. The plaintiffs allege that their attorneys should have initiated the claim in Nevada which is subject to a 6-year statute of limitations, as opposed to Texas which is subject to a 4-year statute. When the claim was dismissed as untimely pursuant to Texas’ statute of limitations, the plaintiffs initiated the malpractice claim. The claim is pending.
This case demonstrates the importance of assessing jurisdiction when filing a cause of action. There may be circumstances that make one venue superior. The U.S. legal system provides opportunities for plaintiffs to select, when appropriate, the jurisdiction of their choosing. This added complexity affords the plaintiff’s counsel with the opportunity to improve her client’s position but also exposes the professional to added risk if she chooses incorrectly. This is an interesting lesson for all attorneys to consider.