LEGAL MALPRACTICE ARISING OUT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Attorneys whose sole area of practice is criminal law frequently do not carry professional liability insurance. This stems from their mistaken belief that criminal practice does not have any potential for professional liability. However, all criminal attorneys should be aware that, in fact, there does exist the potential for liability based in negligence theory.

Ethics in the Virtual Office

Attorneys who practice out of the “virtual” office are becoming more common. Perhaps it is the overhead costs deterring some from shelling out for a physical address, or the ease with which one can practice entirely online, or maybe a bit of both. Whatever the reason, more and more attorneys, especially new bar admitees, are opting for the virtual office. But can an attorney practice entirely online, maintaining the client’s file online, and communicating only with the client via e-mail, all through a secure third -party vendor (i.e. cloud computing) and still be in compliance with his or her ethical obligations? This was the recent issue put before the California State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct in Formal Opinion no. 2012-184.

When Do The Rules of Professional Conduct Apply to Social Media Postings?

            In today’s connected society, it’s difficult to escape the necessity of joining the world of social media networking. For attorneys, social media may provide fast, easy, and economical means of reaching clients and potential clients and advertising their services. “Victory in court today! Contact me for a free consultation,” and “Just won a million dollar verdict! Tell your friends to check me out,” are examples of common social media postings utilized by attorneys to spread the word of their success and appeal to clients. But are such postings subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding advertising? This was the issue recently decided by The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct.

CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT HOLDS INSURER’S DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION OF POLICYHOLDER DOES NOT EXCLUDE BAD-FAITH CLAIMS.

                  An insurer who defends, provides policy benefits, and funds a settlement on behalf of its insured isn’t off the hook for bad faith claims, according to a January 2, 2013 order issued by the United Stated District Court for the Central District of California in the case of Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance. Co., No. SACV 12-570-JST (C.D. Cal., Jan. 2, 2013).

The Completed & Accepted Doctrine

Over the past fifty years, California and the “completed and accepted doctrine” have been in an up-and-down relationship. In the founding case, Kolburn v. P.J. Walker Co., (2d Dist. 1940) 38 Cal. App. 2d 545, a California appellate court held that were an owner accepts the completed work of a contract, said contractor is not liable to third persons for damages arising out of negligent construction. For nearly 20 years, that was the law: if the owner accepted the completed work, contractors were not liable to third parties.

Supreme Court Holds Attorney Malpractice Claim Arising Under Federal Patent Law Is Not Within The Exclusive Jurisdiction Of The Federal Court

On February 20, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Gunn v. Minton (2013) —S.Ct.— that an attorney malpractice claim arising under patent law did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. In that case, the attorneys had represented Minton in a Texas lawsuit in which his patent was declared invalid. Believing his loss of the suit was due to his attorneys’ failure to raise a timely defense, Minton filed a malpractice suit. His former attorneys argued that even if the defense had been timely raised, Minton would have lost the suit; the trial court agreed. Minton appealed, claiming that the federal district courts had exclusive jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over any case “arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents.” Therefore, Minton claimed that the Texas state court lacked jurisdiction and his malpractice suit could be filed in federal court. The Texas Court of Appeals rejected Minton’s argument. The Texas Supreme Court then reversed, concluding the case belonged in federal court because the success of Minton’s malpractice claim relied upon a question of federal patent law.

A roundup of recent licensing legislation

The Contractors State License Law regulates over 300,000 contractors through the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) within the Department of Consumer Affairs. New legislation recently tweaked the licensing rules; below, we analyze the changes.