is there an attorney here?

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Rots of ruck finding a lawyer that will criticize another lawyer. Especially without being retained. Suggest you get, or find online, the code of ethics for lawyers in your state and read that. Surprisingly, even though these are written for lawyers, the wording is in English genuine people can understand. If you are convinced the scoundrel really did you wrong, the proper course of action is to file a complaint with the appropriate agency in your state for ethics violations. In Arkansas that is the State Supreme Court but it varies from state to state. Good luck.
 
thanks guys.

It's just a frustrating situation where at least one attorney(if not two) have dropped the ball on something very important to me, and could have financial ramifications if it isn't taken care of.

I have no plans on doing anything if everything is worked out as it should be, but if not I just wanted to know if it sounds like malpractice. From my point of view, there have been problems with both my attorney and an third party attorney and I'm not about to pay for their mistakes when I'm doing everything that I'm supposed to do and have pointed out the errors on both sides (and the attorneys have admitted that they are errors).
 
EVERYONE is PRACTICING, these days.

Had a plumber out, did a couple things, didn't work, "Call the guy with the root removal machine", but he billed me for everything he did.
Doctor operates on you, you get an infection in the hospital, they charge you for fighting the infection that THEY caused.
And yet, for years they said I was a PRACTICING alcoholic. I have news, I was VERY accomplished and ALWAYS KNEW how to drink.
So let's decide when we should PAY for their practice and when they should KNOW what they are doing BEFORE they do it to US!!!

Just a FWIW---good luck Mike!!
 
I worked at a place once where and old doctor told me he's been practicing for 40 years. I asked him "What, after 40 years your still practicing and haven't got it right yet?"
He looked at me like he's been hit in the face with a brick. The look was priceless.
 
I drive through a nearby town called Camelon most days, near the road there are the usual line of shops selling foods, clothes, haircuts just about everything you would need. The traders who are in the shops park their cars accross the street, all the cars are the usual mix of everyday cars then you see the gleaming black Porsche Cayenne 4 x 4 which is very expensive.

You guessed it, it is the lawers car parked opposite her `practice`.
 
Symantics

wdcav1952 said:
Hey Ed, why don't you practice kissing my a**!! :biggrin::tongue::biggrin:

From a practicing dentist. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Click to expand...

I don't like waiting in line and I know you have a bunch of ASSistants already occupying that space.

Let me know when your done practicing dentistry and are actually an "accomplishing" dentist.
 
Ligget said:
I drive through a nearby town called Camelon most days, near the road there are the usual line of shops selling foods, clothes, haircuts just about everything you would need. The traders who are in the shops park their cars accross the street, all the cars are the usual mix of everyday cars then you see the gleaming black Porsche Cayenne 4 x 4 which is very expensive.

You guessed it, it is the lawers car parked opposite her `practice`.
Click to expand...

So, she shouldn't make a lot of money? Or she shouldn't be allowed to have an expensive car? Sorry, but I don't get it. Maybe this lawyer spends most of her money on the car because she really likes it. Big deal.

Just to settle the controversy over the use of the word "practice" -- most professionals use the term (doctors, lawyers, some architects, engineers, dentists, etc.). The idea is that when you start out, you really don't know anything. That's why you don't charge a lot at first, and you tend to screw up more stuff. How many of you seek out the youngest dentist that you can find to fix your tooth? Or the kid right out of law school to handle your divorce? As you gain experience (practice), you charge more which allows you to buy a Porsche and **** off everyone with how much money you make. :smile:
 
William and Ed, you guys keep this place jumping! I check in everyday just to see what you two are up to next. You two ASSpire to be ASStutee and ASStonish everyone in the ASSylum. Sorry........just had to go there!!!!!!!!:eek::biggrin:
 
Cars don't mean crap. I know a panhandler here in DC that's driving a 2007 Jaguar. And if you drive through some of the "poorer" sections of any town you'll see newer Cadillacs and Mercedes and Land Rovers in a lot of driveways.

You don't need money to buy a car.
 
Don't know if this will help or not. I am not an attorney but have been involved in a lot of legal proceedings. I used to work for a a company that was being sued by an agent (it was an insurance company). His case was not strong and he would have probably lost in court. His attorney let a deadline pass without making a response filing and the case was dismissed. He later sued his attorney for malpractice and won a sizeable award even though his case was not that good.
 
aggromere said:
Don't know if this will help or not. I am not an attorney but have been involved in a lot of legal proceedings. I used to work for a a company that was being sued by an agent (it was an insurance company). His case was not strong and he would have probably lost in court. His attorney let a deadline pass without making a response filing and the case was dismissed. He later sued his attorney for malpractice and won a sizeable award even though his case was not that good.
Click to expand...

I'm in a feisty mood today, so I'll jump on this one too. To win a legal malpractice claim, you have to show that your lawyer screwed up. Also, you have to show that the screw-up caused you to lose some legal right (your case was dismissed). Also, you have to show that you more than likely would have won the case (otherwise, the malpractice didn't cause you any harm). So, if this guy won a "sizeable award," he must have had at least a decent claim against the company.
 
jkeithrussell said:
Also, you have to show that you more than likely would have won the case (otherwise, the malpractice didn't cause you any harm). So, if this guy won a "sizeable award," he must have had at least a decent claim against the company.
Click to expand...

It's state dependent usually, and usually you do "not" have to show that you would have one a case. That is speculation and hersay.
 
jleiwig said:
It's state dependent usually, and usually you do "not" have to show that you would have one a case. That is speculation and hersay.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is not correct. Even a Google search will reveal to you that if the person suing a lawyer for malpractice cannot show a likelihood of recovery (which is different from proving that you would have won) in the underlying case, he can't win a malpractice case. There are other types of legal malpractice that depend on a showing of some other type of harm -- for example, if a lawyer breaches confidentiality and reveals a trade secret to a competitor -- but you still have to show that you suffered some tangible harm.

Do a Google search for "elements legal malpractice claim."

Speculation means conjecture -- basically an uninformed guess as to something. Hearsay means claiming that someone else said something, as opposed to having the person speak for himself. A difference of opinion about the proof required in a legal malpractice case is neither speculation nor hearsay.

:smile:
 
jkeithrussell said:
Sorry, but this is not correct. Even a Google search will reveal to you that if the person suing a lawyer for malpractice cannot show a likelihood of recovery (which is different from proving that you would have won) in the underlying case, he can't win a malpractice case. There are other types of legal malpractice that depend on a showing of some other type of harm -- for example, if a lawyer breaches confidentiality and reveals a trade secret to a competitor -- but you still have to show that you suffered some tangible harm.

Do a Google search for "elements legal malpractice claim."

Speculation means conjecture -- basically an uninformed guess as to something. Hearsay means claiming that someone else said something, as opposed to having the person speak for himself. A difference of opinion about the proof required in a legal malpractice case is neither speculation nor hearsay.

:smile:
Click to expand...

Well which is it? First you said that you had to show that you would have won the case and now your saying you don't have to show that. Pick one Google search or Wikipedia entry and stick with it! :tongue:

The laws of legal malpractice are state specific as I stated earlier.
 
jleiwig said:
Well which is it? First you said that you had to show that you would have won the case and now your saying you don't have to show that. Pick one Google search or Wikipedia entry and stick with it! :tongue:

The laws of legal malpractice are state specific as I stated earlier.
Click to expand...

No, I said that you have to show that you would more than likely have won your case. There is a difference. No one can prove that he would have won his case, but you can prove that your claim was good enough to make it "more than likely" that you would have won.

Most laws are state specific, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are different. For example, the rules regarding legal malpractice claims may vary somewhat from state to state, but the basic elements of the claim are the same.

Let's go with Google. The first hit pulls up this:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/malpractice/legal_malpractice.html

Here's the paragraph that covers what we're talking about:

"Once those elements are satisfied, it is necessary to demonstrate that the plaintiff suffered an injury as a proximate result of the lawyer's negligence. That is, that the injury followed from the lawyer's misconduct. For example, where a lawyer fails to make an evidentiary objection which would have kept a murder weapon out of evidence, a criminal defendant may have a case for legal malpractice - but if the defendant confessed to the murder, left fingerprints all over the victim's house, and was caught while trying to use the victim's credit cards, the defendant won't be able to demonstrate that the lawyer's mistake affected the outcome of his case, and thus won't be able to show that the injury resulted from the negligence. Similarly, if the connection between the alleged act of negligence and the harm suffered is speculative or extremely attenuated, it may not support a malpractice claim - the injury suffered must ordinarily be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the attorney's negligence."

What that means, in essense, is that if you have a case that you could not have won (a suit for damages against a company, for example, where you did not actually suffer any physical or financial harm), then you have not suffered any compensable injury, and your legal malpractice claim fails -- even if your lawyer made a mistake -- and no matter which state you live in.

The basic legal principles do not vary from state to state. One state may require relatively more or less evidence in support of the claim, or may require a relatively more or less strict showing of the likelihood of winning the underlying case -- that's all.

To put it differently, which state has a different framework from what I've described?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom