Search Results for “Mark Fucile” – Page 2

Top Recent Developments in Ethics Rules Every Washington Lawyer Should Know

Get the latest updates on ethics amid new challenges to the rule of law. And take advantage of the last chance to save on related on-demand CLEs.

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Waiver of Privilege When Claiming Attorney Fees as Damages

Division I of the Court of Appeals recently discussed implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege when claiming attorney fees as damages. Bellevue Farm Owners Association v. Stevens, ___ Wn. App. ___, ___ P.3d ___, 2017 WL 1293482 (2017), was on discretionary review. The underlying litigation involved the development of waterfront property and included a counterclaim […]

by NWSidebar

Appeals Court Weighs in on Successor Personal Representative Malpractice Claims

Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals recently addressed whether a successor personal representative had standing to bring a legal malpractice claim against a law firm that had worked solely with an earlier personal representative. The answer: “No.” In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeals in Benjamin v. Singleton, ___ Wn. App. 2d […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Discusses Elected Prosecutor Conflicts

Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals recently, in a split decision, drew from a 1988 death penalty case to refine the determination for when a prosecutor’s client conflict might extend to the office as a whole. State v. Nickels, ___ Wn. App. 2d___, 434 P.3d 535, 2019 WL 479494 (Feb. 7, 2019) […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Interprets ‘Proceeds’ Attached by Attorney Lien in Dissolution Case

Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals recently interpreted the term “proceeds” to which an attorney lien attached in a dissolution case. Matter of Marriage of Shulikov, 2017 WL 3476783 (Wn. App. Aug. 14, 2017) (unpublished), involved a dissolution case that had settled in trial court. The resolution involved payments of maintenance and child […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Rules on Authority of Insurance Defense Counsel

Division II of the Court of Appeals recently addressed the authority of insurance defense counsel in an unusual scenario: where defense counsel had no contact with the insured throughout the course of the litigation involved. Kruger-Willis v. Hoffenburg, 198 Wn. App. 408, 393 P.3d 844 (2017), arose out of an automobile accident. The defendant drove […]

by NWSidebar

New WSBA Advisory Opinion on Withdrawal

WSBA’s Committee on Professional Ethics recently released an advisory opinion on withdrawal issues in for public court proceedings. The Washington State Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics recently released an advisory opinion surveying withdrawal issues in the context of public court proceedings. Advisory Opinion 201701 primarily addresses what you can — and can’t — […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Underscores Significance of Written Fee Agreement

A recent decision by Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals highlights the importance of a written fee agreement. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. Peterson, 2017 WL 1593009 (Wn. App. May 1, 2017) (unpublished), was a fee collection case by a law firm against a client. The law firm had represented the client in […]

by NWSidebar

Knowing When to Go: Court of Appeals Affirms Sanctions Against Lawyer for Continuing After Disqualification

Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals recently affirmed sanctions against a lawyer in an unusual scenario: the lawyer continued to participate in the case after being disqualified.

by NWSidebar

U.S. District Court Highlights Importance of Defining the Decision-Maker

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court in Seattle highlights why it’s important to define the client decision-maker, especially when dealing with small, closely held corporations (Kische USA LLC v. Simsek, 2016 WL 7212534, W.D. Wash. Dec. 13, 2016, unpublished). In this case, charges were brought by the owner of a retail clothing firm […]

by NWSidebar

Supreme Court Holds Order Allowing Withdrawal Precludes Subsequent Malpractice Claim Over the Withdrawal

The Washington Supreme Court held recently in Schibel v. Eymann, ___ Wn.2d ___, ___ P.3d ___, 2017 WL 3382278 (Aug. 3, 2017), that a court order permitting withdrawal under CR 71 precludes a subsequent malpractice claim over the withdrawal.

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Reiterates No Duty to Will Beneficiaries

Division I of the Court of Appeals in Reznick v. Livengood, Alskog, PLLC, 2016 WL 7470037 (Wn. App. Dec. 27, 2016) (unpublished), recently reiterated that will beneficiaries ordinarily do not have standing to bring a legal malpractice claim against the attorney who drew the will involved because they are not clients of the lawyer. In […]

by NWSidebar

New Advisory Opinion on Virtual Offices

The Washington State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics recently released an advisory opinion surveying regulatory and risk management issues for lawyers practicing in so-called “virtual offices.” This emerging practice arrangement can range from a solo attorney working from home to an entire firm that lacks a traditional brick-and-mortar location. Virtual offices typically rely instead […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Distinguishes Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Division I of the Court of Appeals in Paulsell v. Gaffney, 2016 WL 7470061 (Wn. App. Dec. 19, 2016) (unpublished), recently underscored the differences between claims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty that can arise from the same set of facts.

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Finds Fee Dispute Alone Doesn’t Support Consumer Protection Act Claim

Since Short v. Demopolis, 103 Wn.2d 52, 691 P.2d 163 (1984), the business aspects of law practice have been subject to the Washington Consumer Protection Act. RCW 19.86.020 prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce…” RCW 19.86.090, in turn, creates a private […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Holds that Fee Rules Don’t Apply to In-House Counsel’s Wages

Division I of the Court of Appeals recently held that the rules governing lawyer fees do not apply to an in-house counsel’s wages. The case, Chism v. Tri-State Const., Inc., 193 Wn. App. 818, 374 P.3d 193 (2016), involved a wage claim by a former in-house general counsel against his former corporate employer.