1 / 18

Ch. 6 Remedies for Legal Malpractice

Ch. 6 Remedies for Legal Malpractice. Compensatory Damages can be direct or consequential. Direct & Consequential Damages Defined Mallen & Smith §21:1.

Download Presentation

Ch. 6 Remedies for Legal Malpractice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Ch. 6 Remedies for Legal Malpractice Compensatory Damages can be direct or consequential

  2. Direct & Consequential Damages Defined Mallen & Smith §21:1 Direct damages are those damages for injuries that are the immediate, natural & anticipated consequences of the wrong, e.g., compensation for the loss of expected benefits from L’s services and expenses incurred due to L’s failure to achieve those benefits. Consequential damages are compensation for injuries that proximately result from the negligence, but do not flow directly from or concern the objective of representation, e.g., mental distress & related personal injuries to body or reputation, economic losses and expenses incurred in bringing malpractice suit.

  3. A. Compensatory Damages: Basic Rules • Fact of harm: not speculative (must have harm-in-fact) • Amount of damages: proved w/ “reasonable certainty” (preponderance of evidence) • Damages must be proximately caused by the specific breaches of duties

  4. A. Compensatory Damages Basics • Proving proximately caused losses: what did P lose because of L’s malpractice? ·Unsuccessful in underlying litigation -Losing P, now LM P must re-try underlying case to prove that but for LM, would have recovered $X, which amount would have been collectable from original D. -Losing D, now LM P must also retry underlying case, prove that but for LM, verdict would have been for $ (Y-Z) (amount by which judgment exceeded correct amount) ·loss of control damages (where P lost control of closely-held corp. because of D’s LM)

  5. Mitigation Expenses M&S §21:10 Reasonable expenses incurred to mitigate the adverse effects of D’s LM Must be incurred in good faith, with reasonable care and bear reasonable relation to damages sought to be avoided or mitigated May recover attorney’s fees incurred in mitigation

  6. Consequential Damages: Emotional Distress • Rstmt §53 cmt. g. (generally not recoverable b/c unforeseeable) • E.g., ordinary negligence • E.g., breach of contract (not unless accompanied by independent and willful tort) • But recoverable if fraud, intentional tort, willful fiduciary breach or physical contact. • M&S §20.11; e.g., sexual assault

  7. Emotional Distress DamagesWorsham v. Nix, 2006 OK 67, 145 P.3d 1055 (2006) Facts: Mr. & Mrs. Worsham retained L to stop alleged workplace harassment of Mr., paid $650 nonrefundable retainer, $75 ct costs & signed contingent fee agreement. Tho complaint prepared & verified by Mr., suit not filed, nor formal notice to employer of problem for 5 months. Mr. committed suicide, allegedly as consequence of workplace stress. Mrs./administratrix sued L for wrongful death of Mr., and for his & her emotional distress, and other claims. Tr. Ct.: at non-jury trial, after P’s case-in-chief, granted sum. jdgmt for D.

  8. Worsham v. Nix, 2006 OK 67, 145 P.3d 1055 (2006) • Wrongful death precluded by “law of case” doctrine (i.e., might be raised again in different lawsuit, where suicide is foreseeable from breach of duty) • Tr. Ct. d/n err in excluding P’s EW (that filing of suit would have stopped alleged harassment), Daubert/Kumho • Tr. Ct. erred in dismissing Widow’s claim for emotional distress damages allegedly suffered after learning of apparent fraudulent conduct concerning the legal representation.

  9. Consequential Damages: Harm to Reputation • Legal principles similar to emotional distress damages • E.g., recoverable if reputational harm foreseeable & probable result of LM, especially if intentional wrong by L (rarely proven). • But, reputational harm recoverable where L’s negligent defense of medical malpractice case

  10. Adjustments to Damage Calculations • Discount future damages to present value • Prejudgment interest for recoverable damages accrued and fixed in amount before time of trial [Determined by state statute]

  11. Problem 6-1 The Structured Settlement L in p.i. action advised C to enter $3M structured settlement using UKR. Not disclosed that UKR owned by close friend of L’s or that payments not secured by collateral or insurance. 5 years later, UKR went bust. What are C’s damages in malpractice action v. L? • Value of remaining 180 monthly payments of $12K + $3M lump sum payable at end of 20 years a. Prejudgment interest for monthly payments accrued to time of trial. b. Discount to present value all sums that were not accrued by time of trial. • Compensate for loss of tax-free nature of structured settlement. • Emotional distress damages? Nondisclosure of relationship willful breach of fiduciary duty?

  12. B. Punitive Damages (a/k/a exemplary or “enhanced compensatory”)text pp. 188-203 1. Substantive state law variations; “tort reforms” See, e.g., Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 23 §23 9.1: requires “clear & convincing” evidence. Relevant factors: seriousness of public hazard; profitability of misconduct to D; duration & concealment; D’s awareness of hazard; D’s attitude & conduct after discovery; number & level of corp. employees that caused or concealed; D’s financial condition Category I: reckless disregard, greater of $100K or amount of actual damages; Category II: intentional & malicious, greater of $500K or 2x actual damages or increased $ benefit derived by D from conduct injuring P and others; determined after jury fixed actual damages Category III: Intentional & malicious, but not in Category II: bifurcated proceeding after jury fixed actual damages

  13. B. Punitive Damages2. Constitutional Limitations text pp. 191-99 a. 14th Amendment Due Process Clause State Farm v. Campbell (U.S. 2003), and BMW v. Gore (U.S.) (1996) Guideposts: • Degree of reprehensibility of D’s misconduct (factors, including V’s $ vulnerability, repeat or isolated; culpability; state’s legitimate objectives text at p. 193); • Disparity between actual or potential harm to P and amount of punitive damage award (ratios instructive; refused to set bright-line test; single digit multipliers); • Difference between instant award and that upheld in comparable cases.

  14. B. Punitive Damages2. Constitutional Limitations text pp. 191-99 Philip Morris USA v. Williams (U.S. 2007): State forbidden from allowing punitive damages based in any part on desire to punish for harming nonparties. Breyer, J.: no opportunity for D to defend against; “near standardless dimension”; no state power authorizes. States must avoid procedure that “unnecessarily deprives juries of proper legal guidance…assurance that …are not asking the wrong question”

  15. B. Punitive Damages2. Constitutional Limitations text pp. 191-99 Vicarious liability respondeat superior: Pacific Mutual v. Haslip (U.S. 1991)(comports with 14th Am., D.P.; incentive-based policy rationale) Partnership law (each partner vicariously responsible for acts, omissions of all others within scope of partnership activities) N.B. Chapter 8

  16. Problem 6-2 Overbilling Clientstext 198-99 • Culpability: does Lehman’s conduct support punitive damage award? What are relevant factors? • Firm’s vicarious liability? • What substantive & procedural hurdles? Amount of compensatory damages to C? Relevance of damage to other firm clients? How much ($$$$) is “too much” – Due Process?

  17. 3. Liability for “Lost Punitive Damages”? Majority rule, per Tri-G., Inc. v. Burke et al. (Ill. 2006), Ferguson (Cal. 2003), NY and Rstmt § 53, cmt. h: Not recoverable. Policy reasons: • Conduct of LM D bears no relationship to underlying culpable conduct giving rise to potential punitive damage liability; • Speculative; inherently subjective judgment; • Societal Cost Minority view would allow, based on “make whole” remedy, deter legal malpractice.

  18. Problem 6-3 The Nursing Home Litigation Facts distinguishable from Tri-G? Intentional breach of duty? Identify Election of remedy: distinguish claims based on Fraud (punitive damages) Negligence (compensatory damages, possibility of “lost punitive damages” Strategic considerations Other possible recourse? (Discipline; fee forfeiture)

More Related