Showing 11 posts in LMRM.

Avoiding the Upsurge in Trust, Probate and Estate Planning Malpractice

The number of lawsuits against trust, probate and estate planning attorneys has significantly increased over the last several years. Today, trust, probate and estate planing attorneys are charged with legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duties more than any other single practice area, according to a recent survey of the largest professional liability insurers in the country.   More ›

The 2015 LMRM Conference Starts Tomorrow

The 2015 LMRM conference starts tomorrow in Chicago with the Opening Reception at the Westin Chicago River North at 6 pm in the Astor Ballroom.  More ›

LMRM 2015 – Putting Arbitration on Trial

At the 14th annual Legal Malpractice Risk Management (“LMRM”) Conference, being held in Chicago from February 25-27, a panel of distinguished attorneys will put the practice of arbitrating professional liability disputes on trial. More ›

LMRM 2015 — Developments in Litigating Legal Malpractice Claims 2015

At the upcoming Legal Malpractice Risk Management (“LMRM”) Conference, held in Chicago from February 25-27, a panel of veteran trial attorneys will consider and discuss solutions for the unique issues that have arisen in the past year relative to the litigation of legal malpractice claims. This panel, entitled “Developments in Litigating Legal Malpractice Claims 2015,” will provide an interactive discussion of the legal and practical significance of several recent decisions that, while centered on familiar themes, shift the paradigm for legal malpractice practitioners. More ›

LMRM 2015 – Bending the Bars – Testing the Bounds of the Actual Innocence Requirement in Criminal Legal Malpractice

Actual innocence is a generally-accepted element of a criminal legal malpractice claim. The last 12 months have seen refinements of the requirement in its application to lesser-included offenses, criminal contempt proceedings in civil cases, and pre-criminal act advice. Courts have also addressed the preclusive effect of an ineffective assistance of counsel proceeding on the actual innocence requirement, and whether the rule should apply when a law firm provides information that leads to the conviction of its own client. More ›

LMRM 2015 — Psssst! Are you Covered? Developments In Professional Liability Insurance Coverage

Navigating the waters of lawyer’s professional liability insurance can be tricky. Does a fee dispute “arise out of” the rendering or failure to render legal services? (In 2014, a Federal District Court in Texas concluded that it did and the insurer had a duty to defend). Does attorney advertising arise from or relate to the rendering of professional services such that coverage is precluded by a “Legal Services Exclusion”? (Michigan and Rhode Island say no). What is the scope of the “business pursuits” exclusion in your liability policy? (In Missouri, it precluded coverage where an attorney arranged loans from a client for his own law firm, and another client, when the loans went into default).     More ›

LMRM 2015 – Enhancing your data Protection and Mitigating your Cyber Risk

Lost or stolen laptops and mobile devices, drive-by downloads of malware, increasingly sophisticated phishing schemes, careless use of public Wi-Fi, malicious insiders, state-sponsored, industrial or domestic and foreign criminal hackers are some of the risks that law firms face when attempting to protect sensitive client and firm information. In 2014, the ABA adopted a resolution encouraging the development of an "appropriate cyber security program that complies with applicable ethical and legal obligations." Law firms must grapple with what constitutes an "appropriate" cyber security program in light of our ethical duties, client demands, governmental regulations, and various competing industry frameworks and standards. Is ISO 27001 certification worth the time and effort, since certification provides no guarantee that a firm will not suffer a data breach or be hacked? Are there emerging standards to follow, or will data security be driven by client requirements and governmental regulations? How should a firm assess its cyber and data risks, what are the common attack vectors and how can they be guarded, and what should a firm’s data or cyber security program include? More ›

LMRM 2015 -- Conflicts: Who is Your Client?

On February 27, 2015, at the 14th Annual Legal Malpractice and Risk Management ("LMRM") Conference in Chicago, Illinois, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP partner Matthew  O’Hara, will be joined by attorneys Katherine K. Ikeda from Orrick, Herrington  & Sutcliffe LLP and  Mark Tuft from Cooper White & Cooper LLP in a panel discussing the age-old and crucial question: “who is my client?” More ›

LMRM 2015 – Defenses to Disqualification Motions – What Works, What Doesn't

On February 26, 2015, at the 14th Annual Legal Malpractice and Risk Management ("LMRM") Conference in Chicago, Illinois, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP partner Richard Supple, will be joined by attorneys Scott Garner from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and Edward Stein from Anderson Kill PC, in a panel discussing defenses to attorney disqualification motions.   More ›

LMRM 2015 – What’s your Damage? The World of Legal Malpractice Damages

The modern legal malpractice case has gone well past the lawyer who blows a statute of limitations deadline to encompass claims by former clients who believe they would have recovered more, paid less or entered into a better deal if only their lawyer had handled their matter differently. Not only are the lawyer’s strategic decisions coming under more and more scrutiny, but the damages that may be recovered by the malpractice plaintiff are ever evolving from purely placing the plaintiff in the position he or she would have been “but for” the attorney’s negligence, to include non-pecuniary damages such as emotional distress and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Notably, in April 2014, a New Jersey appellate court affirmed an award of emotional distress damages in an action brought by an ex-husband against his ex-wife’s counsel, where counsel had surrendered the daughter’s passport to the ex-wife that allowed her to take the daughter out of the country. See Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, 435 N.J.Super. 198 (2014).    More ›

Subscribe via Email