Friday, September 3, 2010

Jury awards $1.8 million in legal malpractice case

Typically, a plaintiff in a legal malpractice case arguing that the defendant was negligent in handling litigation has to show she would have won the original case had it not been for the conduct of the defendant. And, typically, this is a very difficult standard to meet, which makes this news item very interesting. is reporting today that a Philadelphia jury has awarded nearly $1.8 million in a legal malpractice case in which the plaintiff alleged her attorney failed to plead all of the relevant theories in her medical malpractice case, leading to the necessity of settling her case for $1 million, despite having received a $2.5 million verdict. As you can see, the other intersting aspect of the case is that the plaintiff actually won her underlying case. Her argument was that she could have done even better -- that her lawyer's negligence resulted in her having to settle for less than the value of the judgment. Go here for the full story.

No comments: