FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W171983491> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W171983491 startingPage "481" @default.
• W171983491 abstract "I. Introduction The law generally affords great latitude to parties who contract with each other to structure their relationships as they see fit.1 However, the lawyer-client relationship is treated differently from other contractual relationships.2 Although a retainer agreement between a lawyer and his client is a contract, lawyers have additional, noncontractual legal duties to their clients. As officers of the court, lawyers have ethical obligations to their clients in addition to their contractual obligations.3 Also, the lawyer is a fiduciary of his client and may be liable in tort for a breach of that duty, even if he has not breached the contract.4 Retainer agreements are often heavily skewed in favor of the attorney and a court may be rightly concerned with attorney overreaching.5 However, in addition to seeking to protect clients from the sinister machinations of their attorneys, courts are also concerned with protecting attorneys from the knavery of their clients.6 Furthermore, public policy considerations, such as public respect for the legal profession and confidence in the administration of law, also come into play in a dispute between an attorney and his client.7 In 1976, a California appellate court, in an issue of national first impression, held that a legal malpractice claim may not be assigned.8 Since that time, the majority of courts facing this issue have followed that court's lead and held that legal malpractice claims cannot be assigned.9 But a handful of courts have held that they may be assigned under certain circumstances.10 Commentators have vigorously defended and derided the prohibition against assignment of legal malpractice claims.11 This Note argues that a legal malpractice claim is a form of property and should be freely assignable; however, attorneys should be allowed to limit a prospective client's to assign a potential legal malpractice claim, provided the client provides his informed consent. Part II of this Note surveys the jurisprudence regarding the assignment of legal malpractice claims, highlighting the seminal cases and the policy reasons they give for and against free assignability. Part III argues that these reasons are unpersuasive; legal malpractice claims should be freely assignable, as is almost every other in action. Finally, Part IV argues that attorneys should be allowed to include anti-assignment provisions in their retainer agreements, assuming that they fully inform the client of the effect of that provision. This approach is consistent with contract law and will allow the parties to allocate the risks arising from the contract as they see fit. II. American Jurisprudence Regarding the Assignability of Legal Malpractice Claims A. Overview of Assignment of Choses in Action A chose in is the right to receive or recover a debt, demand, or damages on a cause of action ex contractu or for a tort or omission of a duty,12 or, more colloquially, a right[] to payment.13 At early common law, choses in action were not assignable,14 partly because courts feared champerty and maintenance15 but also because the early English courts regarded rights as personal and non-transferable.16 As England switched to a capitalist economy, merchants demanded that the restraints on alienation of contractual rights and debts be lifted.17 When courts of law refused to accommodate their demands, courts of equity were happy to oblige.18 Eventually, restraints on alienation of other rights were relaxed to the point that assignability became the rule, rather than the exception.19 In the United States, the Supreme Court adopted the survivability rule, holding that personal claims that died with the owner were incapable of assignment, but that claims which attached to property survived the owner's death and were assignable.20 Although courts have practically abandoned the survivability test in favor of public policy considerations when determining whether a particular in action is assignable,21 assignability is now the rule rather than the exception. …" @default.
• W171983491 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W171983491 creator A5054382134 @default.
• W171983491 date "2003-12-01" @default.
• W171983491 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W171983491 title "On the Assignment of Legal Malpractice Claims: A Contractual Solution to a Contractual Problem*" @default.
• W171983491 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W171983491 type Work @default.
• W171983491 sameAs 171983491 @default.
• W171983491 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W171983491 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W171983491 hasAuthorship W171983491A5054382134 @default.
• W171983491 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W171983491 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W171983491 hasConcept C181294204 @default.
• W171983491 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W171983491 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W171983491 hasConcept C2776218876 @default.
• W171983491 hasConcept C2776697845 @default.
• W171983491 hasConcept C2776798817 @default.
• W171983491 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W171983491 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
• W171983491 hasConceptScore W171983491C144133560 @default.
• W171983491 hasConceptScore W171983491C17744445 @default.
• W171983491 hasConceptScore W171983491C181294204 @default.
• W171983491 hasConceptScore W171983491C199539241 @default.
• W171983491 hasConceptScore W171983491C200635333 @default.
• W171983491 hasConceptScore W171983491C2776218876 @default.
• W171983491 hasConceptScore W171983491C2776697845 @default.
• W171983491 hasConceptScore W171983491C2776798817 @default.
• W171983491 hasConceptScore W171983491C2777834853 @default.
• W171983491 hasConceptScore W171983491C2779103253 @default.
• W171983491 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W171983491 hasLocation W1719834911 @default.
• W171983491 hasOpenAccess W171983491 @default.
• W171983491 hasPrimaryLocation W1719834911 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W141576964 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W1587334874 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W190047128 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W208357428 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W2136380825 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W2187748510 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W251614487 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W258287728 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W3122004626 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W3122693750 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W3124542219 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W3125442434 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W3162229127 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W330875967 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W331793995 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W340296232 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W1842155275 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W1891821894 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W2170691704 @default.
• W171983491 hasRelatedWork W2191498188 @default.
• W171983491 hasVolume "82" @default.
• W171983491 isParatext "false" @default.
• W171983491 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W171983491 magId "171983491" @default.
• W171983491 workType "article" @default.