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 […]
Read More…
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 May 1, 2017) (unpublished), was a fee collection case by a law firm against a client.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 […]
Read More…
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) […]
Read More…
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 — […]
Read More…
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.
Read More…
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 Dec. 13, 2016, unpublished).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 […]
Read More…
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.
Read More…
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 Dec. 27, 2016) (unpublished), recently reiterated that will beneficiaries ordinarily do not have standing to bring a legal malpractice claim against the attorney who drew the will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 […]
Read More…
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 […]
Read More…
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.
Read More… 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 […]
Read More…
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.
Read More…
The Alaska Bar Association recently released a new ethics opinion on so-called “web bugs” — electronic trackers placed in email to allow the sender to see (among other things) where the recipient forwarded the email and how long the email was reviewed. In the scenario that gave rise to the opinion, an Alaska Bar member […]
Read More…
Division I of the Court of Appeals recently discussed arbitration of legal malpractice claims in Butler v. Thomsen, 2016 WL 4524244 (Wn. App. Aug. 29, 2016) (unpublished). The facts in Butler were unusual. A lawyer had negotiated the settlement of a minority shareholder “squeeze out” case involving a closely held high-tech company. The settlement agreement […]
Read More…
Since the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Short v. Demopolis, 103 Wn.2d 52, 691 P.2d 163 (1984), the business aspects of law practice have been subject to the Consumer Protection Act, RCW Chapter 19.86. The CPA generally prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in “trade or commerce” under RCW 19.86.020. Remedies under RCW 19.86.090 […]
Read More… Division II of the Court of Appeals recently outlined the standards for implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege in the context of settlement “reasonableness” hearings under RCW 4.22.060. In Steel v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. WL 4001431 (July 26, 2016), the parents of children who had been abused at a day care center sued the center […]
Read More…
