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…
The federal court in Tacoma recently surveyed the “actual innocence” requirement for legal malpractice claims arising from criminal cases and a related exception to that rule. Neaman v. Washington State Department of Corrections, 2025 WL 672642 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 3, 2025) (unpublished), involved, in relevant part, a malpractice claim against a criminal defendant’s former attorneys […]
Read More…
The Washington Court of Appeals upheld the distinction between “injury” and “damages” in a legal malpractice claim in the case of Gill v. Hillier, emphasizing that the statute of limitations begins when the party is injured, even if they do not yet know the full extent of their damages. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder for clients to take prompt action when they believe they have been harmed by a lawyer’s negligence.
Read More…
In legal malpractice claims, proving that the defendant lawyer caused the plaintiff’s injury is crucial. Courts consider “proximate cause,” examining cause in fact and legal causation. In Flanigan v. Herman, a lawyer’s failure to deliver a case schedule resulted in a dismissed malpractice claim. The Court of Appeals found the link between negligence and injury too remote to hold the lawyer liable.
Read More…
In Schmidt v. Coogan, 181 Wn.2d 661, 671, 335 P.3d 424 (2014), the Washington Supreme Court set broad outlines for emotional distress damages as a part of a legal malpractice claim: “We hold that the plaintiff in a legal malpractice case may recover emotional distress damages when significant emotional distress is foreseeable from the sensitive […]
Read More…
In September 2021, the Washington Supreme Court adopted amendments to RPC 1.4, which now require disclosure regarding minimum malpractice insurance levels. With some exceptions, this new requirement applies to all practicing attorneys and has generated many questions.
Read More…
Approximately every four years since 1985, the American Bar Association has published a “Profile of Legal Malpractice Claims.” Plaintiffs’ personal injury and family law are the most frequent source of claims, according to the latest profile. Although the Profile does not correlate the severity of claims by practice area, the Profile’s “anecdotal observations” section suggests that business and commercial law have traditionally been higher-risk areas on this score.
Read More…
The Idaho Supreme Court now requires malpractice insurance for lawyers in that state. For Washington lawyers who are also licensed in Idaho, the Idaho Supreme Court recently amended its licensing rule to soon require malpractice insurance for lawyers in private practice.
Read More…