As you probably know, jurisdiction are divided on the issue of whether a convicted criminal defendant should be required to show actual innocence as a requirement to support a malpractice claim against his or her former criminal defense lawyer.
I recently wrote that Mississippi and Kentucky adopted an exoneration requirement, while Iowa and Idaho rejected it. (For more stories on the issue, go here and scroll down.)
Today I am writing about this because I just read that the Utah Supreme Court has affirmed and clarified its holding that a criminal defendant can sue counsel for malpractice without proving actual innocence in a case called Paxman v King, available here.
The Legal Profession Blog has more details here.
No comments:
Post a Comment