Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Re: mal-practice attorney

It sounds like your attorney acted incompetantly at trial as the facts you expressed to me are basic requirements for the preparation by a lawyer. Our firm handles legal malpractices cases and we would need to review your file and ask you some more questions in order to determine if you have a case.

Re: mal-practice attorney

Sounds like you need to request your file from the attorney and retain an attorney to determine whether there was malpractice. From what you have said, it sure sounds like it.

Re: mal-practice attorney

To prevail in an attorney malpractice case, you must prove not only that the attorney committed malpractice but also that but for the malpractice, you would have recovered an underlying judgment. For example, if you were suing for $165,000, and you now claim that but for the attorney's negligence, you would have obtained a judgment for $165,000, then you now have to sue the attorney for malpractice, and establish (1) that she was negligent somehow, and (2) that but for that negligence, you would have obtained a $165,000 judgment that was collectible. It's not an easy hill to climb.

First things first, you need to (1) obtain the file from your attorney, and (2) ascertain whether your attorney has malpractice coverage. You are entitled to a copy of your file upon reasonable notice.

You should consult with an attorney familiar with these types of issues. We are litigators with this experience, and if/when you are ready to proceed, feel free to call or email us.

Re: mal-practice attorney

I have defended other lawyers in legal malpractice cases, so I can give you a little glimpse into how these types of cases work. Legal malpractices cases have a 1-year statute of limitation, so I would encourage you to seek a new attorney right away.

First, you should seek an attorney who handles legal malpractice matters. He or she should get the file from your original lawyer and review it. it is not enough for the attorney to commit malpractice because you also must prove that the result in your other case would have been different but for the malpractice.

You will also need to hire an expert witness/lawyer to testify that your trial attorney's conduct fell below the standard of care. At trial in the legal malpractice case, you will be required to prove a "case within case", or basically put on the case the case that your first lawyer should have put on to begin with. If you should have won a judgment in the prior case, you must also prove the ability to collect the judgment. If you feel that you owe money but less than the $165,000 judgment against you, then your attorney might be liable for the difference between what the judgment is and what it should have been.

Ideally, you would want to hire a new lawyer that is familiar with handling legal malpractice cases AND the type of case that you originally had (i.e. collections, wrongful terminations, etc.)

Re: mal-practice attorney

Just another thought besides those of my very competent and knowledgeable colleagues. Would you qualify for a bankruptcy? That's a pretty steep judgment. In the bankruptcy, you could also list the potential malpractice case against your attorney as an asset, and see if the trustee would be interested in pursuing it for the benefit of your creditors.

Re: mal-practice attorney

You could have fired her at anytime -- just say, "your fired." You didn't do that despite your repeated notice of inappropriate actions. You will have to answer this issue. Also, you will have to prove that had she done the case correctly, you would have won -- difficult to do. I wouldn't take the case, I am sorry to you, but you have to take the bull by the horns and fire your employees if they aren't doing what you want.