FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W239281194> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W239281194 startingPage "498" @default.
• W239281194 abstract "Writing in April newsletter of Professional Errors and Omissions Committee, George W. Spellmire and Denise A. Johnson of D'Ancona & Pflaum, Chicago, discuss changes in legal malpractice landscape: Traditionally, within doctrine applied in legal malpractice cases has been a formidable obstacle to claimants and final stronghold lawyer-defendant. While not based on a scientific survey, experience has shown that for rule and case within case doctrine, which focuses on legal and factual validity of claimant's underlying rights, have been most effective legal concept in defense of actions against attorneys. This is true whether underlying matter involved transactions or litigation. However, in recent years, problem of former clients claiming that their attorneys engaged in negligent settlements has increased, decreasing effect of for rule by shifting burden of proof to attorney-defendants. Courts also have decreased impact of but rule and case within case doctrine in other ways. They have accepted claims negligent settlement, negligent settlement negotiation, and even negligent business/ transaction negotiation as stating causes of action against lawyers. The judicial acceptance of negligent settlement/negotiation circumvents requirement that client, in fact, lost a subsisting right, whether in litigation or transactional context. See Campbell v. Magana, 8 Cal.Rptr. 32 (Cal.App. 1960). For example, in Scognamillo v. Olsen, 795 P.2d 1357 (Colo. App. 1990), former clients charged defense counsel with impermissibly representing conflicting interests. At trial, court allowed plaintiffs to introduce expert testimony regarding what a reasonable client would have done under particular circumstances confronting plaintiffs, and that, had plaintiffs had separate counsel, they would have settled. The court stated: Defendants next argue that trial court abused its discretion in allowing plaintiffs' expert to testify that plaintiffs would have settled if represented in Alling trial by separate counsel. We disagree. [Colorado Rule of Evidence] 702 permits expert testimony if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist trier of fact to understand evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The basis admissibility under CRE 702 is, thus, not that witness possesses skill in a particular field, but that the witness can offer assistance on a matter not within knowledge or common experience of people or ordinary intelligence. McNelly v. Smith, 149 Colo. 177, 368 P.2d 555 (1962). Here, both plaintiffs' experts opined that Alling case would have been settled without trial if Volger, Scognamillo, and Faircloth had been represented by separate counsel. Whether to accept a settlement offer is ultimately decision of client. The expert's opinions in this regard focus, therefore, on what a reasonable client would have done under particular circumstances confronting plaintiffs. Based on record here, long experience of experts relative to client settlement decisions entitled them to opine on this issue, and there was thus no error in receiving their testimony in this regard. In addition, in Wood v. McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, 581 N.W.2d 107 (Neb. App. 1998), expert testimony was allowed as to likely outcome of litigation. The Nebraska Court of Appeals stated: The law states generally that an expert may testify about a reasonable and probable outcome at trial. McWhirt v. Heavey, 250 Neb. 536, 550 N.W.2d 327 (1996). See, generally, McLeod v. Fechtel, 821 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1987); Reed v. Mitchell & Timbanard, P.C., 183 Ariz. …" @default.
• W239281194 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W239281194 creator A5085901600 @default.
• W239281194 creator A5088139837 @default.
• W239281194 date "2001-10-01" @default.
• W239281194 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W239281194 title "But For and Case within the Case Weakening" @default.
• W239281194 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W239281194 type Work @default.
• W239281194 sameAs 239281194 @default.
• W239281194 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W239281194 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W239281194 hasAuthorship W239281194A5085901600 @default.
• W239281194 hasAuthorship W239281194A5088139837 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C145097563 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C199776023 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C2776687834 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C2776798817 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C2777063073 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C2778890055 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W239281194 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C10138342 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C11413529 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C144133560 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C145097563 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C17744445 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C199539241 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C199776023 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C200635333 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C2776119841 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C2776211767 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C2776687834 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C2776798817 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C2777063073 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C2777834853 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C2778890055 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C41008148 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C48103436 @default.
• W239281194 hasConceptScore W239281194C97460637 @default.
• W239281194 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W239281194 hasLocation W2392811941 @default.
• W239281194 hasOpenAccess W239281194 @default.
• W239281194 hasPrimaryLocation W2392811941 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W137586339 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W1588091537 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W2014030336 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W2148201262 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W2221330640 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W2269699112 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W2341029921 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W245979092 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W249805452 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W257778114 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W275728422 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W3185459432 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W321468547 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W324641192 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W333784745 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W339657975 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W383354263 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W78491580 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W79507437 @default.
• W239281194 hasRelatedWork W916876370 @default.
• W239281194 hasVolume "68" @default.
• W239281194 isParatext "false" @default.
• W239281194 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W239281194 magId "239281194" @default.
• W239281194 workType "article" @default.