Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W330875967> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 70 of
70
with 100 items per page.
- W330875967 startingPage "332" @default.
- W330875967 abstract "LEGAL malpractice claims involving underlying business transactions present a unique set of circumstances to both insurers and defense counsel. Transactional claims may involve sophisticated, complex, and high risk agreements that are distinct from typical litigation malpractice cases. Damages are frequently substantial as the transacting parties have high expectations of returns under the agreements. Even though traditional legal malpractice theories still apply to transactional settings, counsel and insurers should recognize that typical standards and defenses, such as the proximate cause requirement of within a have special application in transactional settings. This article provides both an overview of some of the basic legal concepts that surround transactional legal malpractice claims as well as some practical considerations in defending and handling such claims. This first part of the article discusses recent legal authority that applies the within a case standard in transactional settings. The second half of the article provides an overview of what types of practical issues can arise and should be considered in defending and handling these types of claims. I. within a Case Requirement in Transactional Legal Malpractice Cases The elements of a professional negligence cause of action include: 1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; 2) a breach of that duty; 3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and 4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence. (1) In order to establish the proximate cause element in a legal malpractice case, the plaintiff must establish the within a which requires proof that the claim underlying the malpractice action should have been successful if the attorney had acted in accordance with his or her duty. (2) Courts have more recently been asked whether within a case applies to claims involving transactional malpractice; that is, whether a plaintiff must prove that an excluded or unfavorable term in the underlying agreement would have been accepted by the other negotiating party if the attorney had acted in accordance with his or her duty. The majority of courts that have addressed this issue have determined that the within a case standard does apply to transactional malpractice claims. (3) The Viner v. Sweet decision is instructive. (4) The plaintiffs in Viner filed a lawsuit against the attorney who represented them in the sale of their business. The plaintiffs claimed that their attorney had led them to believe that several favorable terms were included in the sales agreement, but these terms were not in fact included. A jury awarded the plaintiffs lost profits of over $13 million. The defendant attorney moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the plaintiffs had to prove they would have obtained those favorable terms in the sales agreement but for the defendant's negligence. The trial court denied the motions. The California Court of Appeals affirmed and distinguished the standard for establishing causation in transactional malpractice claims as opposed to traditional litigation malpractice claims. The California Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals' rationale, summarizing the Court of Appeals' decision: First, the court [of appeals] asserted that in litigation a gain for one side is always a loss for the other, whereas in transactional work a gain for one side could also be a gain for the other side. Second, the court [of appeals] observed that litigation malpractice involves past historical facts while transactional malpractice involves what parties would have been willing to accept for the future. …" @default.
- W330875967 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W330875967 creator A5080276741 @default.
- W330875967 creator A5087616920 @default.
- W330875967 date "2006-10-01" @default.
- W330875967 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
- W330875967 title "Defending the Transactional Legal Malpractice Case: Trends and Considerations for Defense Counsel" @default.
- W330875967 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
- W330875967 type Work @default.
- W330875967 sameAs 330875967 @default.
- W330875967 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W330875967 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W330875967 hasAuthorship W330875967A5080276741 @default.
- W330875967 hasAuthorship W330875967A5087616920 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C114425635 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C2776798817 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C68489960 @default.
- W330875967 hasConcept C75949130 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C114425635 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C144133560 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C162324750 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C17744445 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C190253527 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C199360897 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C199539241 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C2776798817 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C2779103253 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C39549134 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C41008148 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C68489960 @default.
- W330875967 hasConceptScore W330875967C75949130 @default.
- W330875967 hasIssue "4" @default.
- W330875967 hasLocation W3308759671 @default.
- W330875967 hasOpenAccess W330875967 @default.
- W330875967 hasPrimaryLocation W3308759671 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W1534071576 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W1541609534 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W1566894743 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W1587334874 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W1590901067 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W171983491 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W190047128 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W1904677162 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W1970075346 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W2136380825 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W2254205453 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W2272566436 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W2301475482 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W2992116338 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W3121272391 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W3123617632 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W3124137948 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W3124477100 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W1891821894 @default.
- W330875967 hasRelatedWork W2598984262 @default.
- W330875967 hasVolume "73" @default.
- W330875967 isParatext "false" @default.
- W330875967 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W330875967 magId "330875967" @default.
- W330875967 workType "article" @default.