The “actual innocence” requirement in legal malpractice claims against criminal defense attorneys necessitates plaintiffs to prove they did not commit the crime linked to alleged negligence. Jurisdictions like Washington, Alaska, and Oregon have their variations, complicating malpractice lawsuits. Recent cases reveal nuances that could shape future interpretations and applications of this requirement.
Read More…
A recent Advisory Opinion clarifies that a purchasing lawyer cannot use the selling lawyer’s name in their firm name after buying a law practice. This prohibition, rooted in professional conduct rules, aims to prevent misleading communications about lawyers’ affiliations, ensuring transparency and protecting clients’ understanding. Ethical compliance is emphasized.
Read More…
The Washington Court of Appeals recently ruled on attorney-client privilege in receivership cases, affirming that a receiver can control a corporation’s privilege. In the Matter of Elcon Corporation, the court held the receiver can compel the production of privileged emails from Elcon, consistent with RCW 7.60.060(1)(c) and bankruptcy precedent.
Read More…
A federal district court in Seattle examined malpractice claims against Limited Practice Officers (LPOs) under Washington law. In Sadr v. Oney, the court ruled that while the LPO used approved forms, it was not subject to attorney standards of care, differentiating it from past cases. This decision contributes to limited jurisprudence on LPO malpractice.
Read More…
The Washington Court of Appeals upheld the disqualification of a law firm in Day v. Tacoma RV Center due to a conflict of interest arising from a lateral hire. The court found that the cases were nearly identical, emphasizing the necessity of proper screening to prevent such conflicts in legal practice.
Read More…
Washington state’s climate and construction practices pose risks for residential structures due to water intrusion, leading to damage and potential collapse. This article outlines defective practices, inspection methods, and insurance policies, emphasizing that property insurance can cover ongoing damage, urging homeowners’ associations to act accordingly when assessing and claiming repairs.
Read More…
The federal district court in Seattle recently highlighted a key procedural requirement for most disqualification motions based on asserted former client conflicts: The party bringing the motion must show that they were, in fact, a former client of the lawyer or law firm targeted. Thompson v. Seattle Public Schools, 2025 WL 2654650 (W.D. Wash. Aug. […]
Read More…
The Committee on Professional Ethics released Advisory Opinion 202501, addressing confidentiality and conflicts of interest for lawyers representing certified professional guardians. Key issues include lawyers’ obligations to maintain resident confidentiality while advising care facilities and the complexities of simultaneous representation. The opinion emphasizes the challenge of balancing interests in protecting resident rights.
Read More…
The WSBA Board of Governors is reviewing the Washington state Oath of Attorney, finding it outdated and convoluted. Following Law Day, a Task Force is being formed to propose updates, aiming to present a revised oath by Law Day 2026. The Task Force will gather input from various legal stakeholders and analyze current practices.
Read More…
Over the past generation, law firms have developed internal ethics and risk management structures. Courts recognize attorney-client privilege for internal communications but allow exceptions, like the fiduciary exception, when client interests conflict. A recent Spokane decision clarified that this exception does not apply to post-representation fee disputes, distinguishing it from prior rulings.
Read More…
Luigi Mangione. Sean “Diddy” Combs. Mike Lindell. Some names are so notorious that media attention is a given. But what about those cases you didn’t expect to go viral and then turn into an all-out media circus by surprise? Many a lawyer has had a case dropped in their lap that blows up in the […]
Read More… The Washington Court of Appeals recently upheld the litigation privilege in Valve Corporation v. Bucher Law, allowing law firms to dismiss claims of tortious interference and abuse of process after representing clients against Valve. The court found the firms’ communications were related to judicial proceedings and addressed matters of public concern under UPEPA.
Read More…
The Washington Court of Appeals ruled that a law firm acting as a debt collection agency is not protected by the litigation privilege. In Tavaglione v. Dehkhoda & Qadri, the court found the firm could be sued for violations of the Washington Collection Agency Act, as its primary function was debt collection rather than legal representation.
Read More…
The Alaska Bar Association’s Ethics Opinion 2025-1 discusses the use of AI in law practice, emphasizing competence, confidentiality, and billing. It highlights risks associated with AI prompts that may reveal client information, urging lawyers to use closed systems or anonymize prompts when employing AI. Confidentiality remains a critical concern.
Read More…
The Washington Court of Appeals ruled in Snyder v. Virginia Mason Medical Center on the limits of doctor-patient and attorney-client privileges in medical malpractice cases. The court determined that former employee-doctors cannot be contacted ex parte by defense counsel, requiring that interviews involve the plaintiff’s lawyer or be conducted as depositions.
Read More…
The Alaska Supreme Court has established the “continuous representation” rule, which tolls the statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims while a lawyer continues to represent the client. This decision, stemming from Sheldon-Lee v. Birch Horton Bittner, Inc., allows clients to address concerns without risking future claims and encourages lawyers to rectify issues.
Read More…