Professional Liability Blog

After over a $1 million jury verdict was rendered against it in the trial court, a Texas law firm appealed arguing the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury’s award for lost opportunity to settle the underlying personal injury claim involving a trucking accident. The law firm argued its client, a trucking company defendant in the underlying personal injury suit, failed to offer any expert testimony as to the causation and damages in the legal malpractice lawsuit. Instead, the client relied solely on the lay testimony of the personal injury suit plaintiff’s attorney, the plaintiff in the personal injury suit, and its own president’s testimony about whether the underlying suit should have settled if given an opportunity and the amount of settlement. 

The Washington Supreme Court held a law firm who had previously represented an insurance company in defending bad faith suits was not disqualified from representing plaintiff policyholders in a bad faith suit involving a fire loss against the same insurer. The Court held the representations were not “substantially related” because they were not factually related and the insurer did not show a “substantial risk” the law firm obtained “confidential factual information” which would “materially advance” the policyholders’ case. 

The realities of running a business can sometimes interfere with the practice of law. When a lawyer needs funding to keep his or her practice afloat, a tempting source of financing might be a wealthy client with whom the lawyer has developed a relationship over the course of many years and transactions. Borrowing money from a client, however, is rife with ethical and legal ramifications.