Blog Topic

Legal Malpractice
Posted by: Jason Reese
March 14, 2008

 Indiana Legal Malpractice Case Addresses The Issue of Equitable Subrogation

Yesterday, the New York Legal Malpractice Blog had an interesting post about a decision from the Court of Appeals of Indiana called Querrey & Harrow Ltd., et al. v. Transcontinental Insurance Co.which addresses the question, "can an excess insurer bring a legal malpractice action against an insureds attorneys?" The decision addresses issues of equitable subrogation and attorney-client privilege (to name a few), looking at the law in Indiana and other jurisdictions (including Illinois). It is definitely a case legal malpractice lawyers should take the few minutes to read.

Permalink

Legal Malpractice
Posted by: Jason Reese
March 10, 2008

Illinois Appellate Court Holds Client's Settlement of Underlying Case Does Not Preclude Malpractice Claim

An Illinois appellate court recently held that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a client's statement in court that she understood and agreed to the terms of her divorce settlement did not bar the client from bringing a legal malpractice claim alleging her attorney failed to conduct adequate discovery and gave her negligent advice.

The doctrine of judicial estoppel is designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by precluding a party from asserting a position in a judicial proceeding that is totally inconsistent with a position the party asserted in a prior judicial proceeding. In the instant case, the defendant attorney argued that the client's testimony at the divorce settlement prove up hearing that she understood and agreed to the terms of the divorce settlement precluded the malpractice action. The Court rejected this argument finding that because the client's testimony in the dissolution proceeding was predicated on her attorney's negligent failure to conduct adequate discovery and the attorney's negligent advice, the testimony in the prove up was not inconsistent with the allegations of malpractice.

The case probably would have been decided differently if the plaintiff client had alleged in her malpractice action that she did not understand the terms of the divorce settlement; instead it was alleged that the attorney's malpractice prevented the client from making an informed decision as to whether to accept the divorce settlement. See, Wolfe v. Wolfe, 2007 WL 2350187 (Ill.App., Aug. 2007).

*Source: Professional Liability Reporter, Volume 32, Number 10, October 2007.

Permalink

Legal Malpractice
Posted by: Jason Reese
January 08, 2008

Legal Malpractice Verdict Against Law Firm

An Indianapolis jury awarded $18 million against a local law firm for committing legal malpractice.

Fillenwarth Dennerline was on the hook because everyone else involved in the collapse of the Indiana Construction Insurance Trust already had settled with the Indiana Department of Insurance. When the state liquidated the trust, it collected $7 million to pay back the medical claims of 8,200 Hoosiers. Frederick Dennerline III wanted the law firm's insurance company to settle for $1 million, too, according to a separate lawsuit. He was the attorney for the trust, which was a medical insurance collective of union contractors. The insurance company refused to settle, the case went to trial and, last week, the law firm and ProNational Insurance Co. were hit with an $18 million judgment.

This case goes to show that even lawyers can be negligent. And not just a cause simple harm to their clients, but a huge amount of harm.

Permalink