Statutory Liability
Law Firm Not Liable for 10(b) Violation Under Stoneridge
In re Refco Inc. Securities Litigation, 609 F. Supp. 2d 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
In summary, plaintiffs alleged a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by a law firm for allegedly helping draft an issuer’s misleading statements. The allegations were held insufficient because the investors, based solely on knowledge that the firm was the issuer’s primary outside counsel, could not have reasonably understood the law firm to have made the statements.
Statutory Liability
Lawyer’s "Attorney Malpractice Report" Substantive in Nature and Unsolicited Faxing of It Does Not Constitute "Unsolicited Advertisement"
Stern v. Bluestone, 12 N.Y.3d 873, 911 N.E.2d 844 (2009)
In a 2008 New York decision, plaintiff, a lawyer, sued another lawyer, Bluestone, for faxing him unwanted one-page faxes titled “Attorney Malpractice Report,” and subtitled, “Free Monthly Report on Attorney Malpractice From the Law Office of Andrew Lavoott Bluestone.” Stern v. Bluestone, 47 A.D.3d 576, 850 N.Y.S.2d 90 (2008), appeal dismissed, 10 N.Y.3d 826, 858 N.Y.S.2d 652, 888 N.E.2d 394 (2008).
Statue of Limitaions
Statute of Limitations Commenced When Defense Was Raised in Underlying Case
Frankston v. Denniston, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 366, 907 N.E.2d 204 (2009)
In cases where a lawyer fails to commence a timely action or to advise a client of an impending time limitation, the client may pursue the perceived remedy with other counsel. A Massachusetts lawyer was sued for failing to advise the client of an impending lapse of the statute of limitations on his claims arising from a stock pooling agreement. In an action brought by other counsel, the defense was raised in a motion for summary judgment. The court held that the motion put the client on notice of the attorney’s error, and his continued cost of litigation constituted “appreciable harm” sufficient for the statute to commence.
“But for" Causation
Failure to File in Other State Was Not a Superseding Cause
Williams v. Joynes, 278 Va. 57, 677 S.E.2d 261 (Va. 2009)
The Virginia Supreme Court reversed summary judgment in favor of a lawyer who failed to timely file a personal injury action in Virginia but defended the legal malpractice action on the ground that the client’s failure to file in Maryland was a superseding cause. The court disagreed with the attorney’s contention because his failure to file a Virginia action was the cause of the client’s need to file a Maryland lawsuit, and could thus not be a superseding cause. Further, the failure to file in Virginia barred an action against one of the two primary tortfeasors, even in Maryland. The court stated that it did not decide whether the client’s failure to file in Maryland could be a failure to mitigate damages.
Assignments
Louisiana Court Holds Legal Malpractice Claim Is Not Assignable
Taylor v. Babin, 13 So. 3d 633 (La. 2009)
In summary, plaintiffs appealed from a judgment granted in favor of defendants, although the appellate court affirmed holding that legal malpractice claims are not assignable. The alleged legal malpractice arose in connection with litigation stemming from a motorboat accident. Eva Taylor and Kevin Ledet were passengers in a motorboat operated by Jesse Foret. While traversing the waterway connecting Bayou Decade to Lake Jug in Terrebonne Parish, Foret drove the watercraft into a rock levee. Upon impact, all three occupants of the vessel were thrown overboard. Each sustained serious injuries.
This newsletter has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. |