In a legal malpractice action arising out of revisions to a client's estate plan, the appellate court considered whether an attorney has a duty to evaluate a client's mental capacity and, if so, whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to show the defendants (a law firm and its attorneys) were aware of their client's disability at the time they provided legal services.

As we say goodbye to 2024, we are pleased to announce our 2024 Hinshaw Readers’ Choice Awards in the professional liability and legal ethics category. The following are the Top 5 posts receiving the highest levels of engagement from our readers in 2024 on topics ranging from financial elder abuse claims and bar advisory opinions to attorney disqualification motions.

The First District Appellate Court in Illinois affirmed the trial court's denial of a defendant law firm's motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the arbitration provision in the "Attorney-Client Agreement" entered into with plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action was procedurally unconscionable. The court ruled that plaintiff could not be held to an agreement to arbitrate a legal malpractice claim "without being informed about the scope and effect of the agreement."

The plaintiff sued two defendants for legal malpractice related to an allegedly time-barred underlying personal injury case.

The First District Appellate Court in Illinois reaffirmed the broad scope of the absolute litigation privilege in claims arising from communications (and other conduct) related to judicial proceedings.

Plaintiff, JBS Carriers, Inc. (“JBS”), sued Chamblee Ryan, P.C. (the “defendant”) for legal malpractice related to JBS’ alleged lost opportunity to settle the underlying personal injury case in which the defendant had been representing JBS.

The Texas Court of Appeals held that when a plaintiff's claim against her former attorney properly is grounded in professional negligence, the plaintiff cannot also bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the attorney.

The First District Appellate Court in Illinois held that the trial court (Judge Patrick J. Sherlock) was correct in entering a default judgment against an attorney in a legal malpractice action after the attorney repeatedly fabricated his expert witness disclosures "from whole cloth."

An Illinois appellate court reversed a discovery order compelling the defendant law firm to produce privileged communications with its client in a defamation action under the crime-fraud exception. The court found that the crime-fraud exception did not apply because the conduct attributed to the law firm did not rise to the level of fraud, and no fraud was perpetrated as a result of the law firm's advice.

A Colorado Appellate Court upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a legal malpractice action related to an underlying shareholder dispute. The plaintiff was unable to prove that the defendants' negligence in not timely disclosing a valuation expert was the "but for" cause of the plaintiff's damages from an inadequate settlement of the underlying case.

Plaintiffs Lehram Capital Investments (“Lehram”) and Daniel Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit against Baker & McKenzie LLP[1] (“Baker” or “defendant”) for legal malpractice related to the ownership of a salt mine located in Russia (“underlying action”). Lehram is a London-based business that hired Baker to perform legal work in multiple countries.

The Florida Bar has concluded that a lawyer may utilize generative artificial intelligence (AI) so long as the lawyer can reasonably guarantee compliance with the lawyer's ethical obligations.

The Washington Court of Appeals held that when the facts are undisputed, proximate cause is an issue of law to be decided by the court. The plaintiff alleged his former attorney failed to send him a case scheduling order, which resulted in the plaintiff failing to appear at trial, and a judgment was entered against him.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals aligned itself with the minority view by holding that the continuous representation rule does not extend the statute of limitations for claims of professional negligence (legal malpractice). Instead, the statute of limitations begins to run when the last act of negligence occurs.

In a legal malpractice action arising out of an underlying commercial dispute, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a trial court's ruling, which ordered arbitration of the malpractice action because the arbitration provision in the fee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants violated Rule 4-1.5(i) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar insofar as it failed to include the requisite notice.

Comprehensive Marketing, Inc. v. Huck Bouma, P.C., et al., 2023 IL App (1st) 220694-U

Malek v. Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., 2023 IL App (1st) 230723

Stormo v. State Nat'l Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 19-10034-FDS, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149899 (D. Mass. Aug. 25, 2023).

Johnson v. Darren Findling Law Firm, PLC, No. 22-cv-5517, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144186 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 2023).

Previously, as the only state not to adopt some version of the American Bar Association's Model Rule 8.3, California has now finally joined the rest of the nation. California's new Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3, which goes into effect August 1, 2023, establishes a duty to report the misconduct of other lawyers that "raises a substantial question as to the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."