CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Archive for the ‘California LPL’ Category

California Attorneys Who Fail to Comply with the State Bar Re-Fingerprinting Rule Risk Monetary Penalties and License Suspension

Posted on: April 30th, 2019

By: Paige Pembrook

April 30, 2019 marks the initial deadline for California attorneys to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.9.5—the rule that requires attorneys to re-submit fingerprints to the State Bar so the Bar can obtain records regarding attorney arrests and convictions.  Attorneys who fail to comply with the re-fingerprinting rule by April 30, 2019 will be subject to monetary penalties. Attorneys who fail to comply with the re-fingerprinting rule by the final deadline of December 1, 2019 will have their licenses suspended.

For the past 30 years the State Bar has not been complying with its statutory mandate to use attorney fingerprinting to obtain information about attorney arrests and convictions from the California Department of Justice (DOJ).  Although attorneys were fingerprinted at the time of admission to the State Bar, neither the Bar nor the DOJ retained those fingerprints for purposes of reporting arrests and convictions of admitted attorneys.

Rule 9.9.5 rectified this situation by requiring all active licensed attorneys to be re-fingerprinted by December 1, 2019. The State Bar and DOJ will retain the fingerprints to enable the Bar to receive state and federal criminal record information, including a summary of arrests, criminal charges, and sentencing.

Thus far, the re-fingerprinting rule has revealed that over 2,000 practicing attorneys have previously unreported criminal records, including 20 previously unreported felonies. The 20 previously unreported felonies have been sent to the State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel for review and potential disciplinary action.

Regardless of the re-fingerprinting rule, attorneys are required to report criminal convictions to the State Bar under the self-reporting mandate. The State Bar may discipline attorneys for failing to report a conviction to the Bar, for the conviction itself, or for both.  The best practice is to self-report any convictions as well as timely comply with the re-fingerprinting rules.

Even attorneys who have no criminal history should be sure to submit their fingerprints by the final December 1, 2019 deadline. Otherwise, such attorneys risk license suspension and exposure to liability for the unauthorized practice of law.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Paige Pembrook at [email protected].

Engagement Letters Can Reduce The Risk of a Legal Malpractice Claim

Posted on: April 26th, 2019

By: Greg Fayard

Lawyers often ask: what can I do to reduce the risk of a legal malpractice lawsuit? They can do several things, but a clear, narrowly-tailored engagement letter can certainly help decrease the risk of a claim. Here are some tips on effective lawyer-client engagement letters.

• Treat the letter more as an opportunity to build rapport with the client, and less as a formal, intimidating contract. How the relationship begins often determines how it will end, thereby mitigating the risk of a dispute down the road.

• Specifically, identify who the client is to avoid confusion. For example, an engagement letter can state the client is a corporation while excluding officers, directors and shareholders. Stating who is not the client can be as important as stating who is the client.

• State clearly how long the representation will last. Will it end upon settlement, a plea, a conviction, judgment enforcement, but not an appeal? For transactional matters, will the representation end when funds have been transferred and received or after any monitoring provisions lapse? A well-defined length-of -representation clause can also aid the lawyer in a statute of limitations defense. Statutes of limitation begin to toll on termination of the lawyer-client relationship.

• A good engagement letter should also specify precisely the fees in a matter, how fees are calculated, how fees are different than costs, and who is responsible for costs. Contingency matters should also be precise in terms of the percentage going to the attorney, and if different percentages apply, when those percentages apply. Whether a personal injury attorney is entitled to additional funds upon successfully negotiating a medical lien should be succinctly laid out as well. However, the client should be given the opportunity to consult independent counsel with regard to extra attorney compensation for negotiating a medical lien.

• Most importantly, an engagement letter that specifies the scope of representation can help address any misunderstandings over whether the lawyer was to advise a client on all legal issues faced by the client, or only a specific matter. A general scope of representation clause in an engagement letter can lead to a client believing the lawyer represents the client on all of its legal issues, indefinitely, causing some clients to believe the lawyer has an ongoing duty of representation.

For any questions, please contact Greg Fayard at [email protected].

Can a California Lawyer be Disciplined for a Paralegal’s Misconduct?

Posted on: March 27th, 2019

By: Greg Fayard

In some circumstances, a California lawyer can be disciplined by the State Bar for a paralegal’s misconduct. This type of discipline was not possible under the State’s old lawyer-ethics rules. Rule 5.3 of the new rules requires attorney-managers to make sure nonlawyers—such as law students, investigators, legal assistants or paralegals—are not violating any ethical rules. A supervising lawyer, which could be an associate (so long as he or she has direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer), can be responsible for the ethical breach of a paralegal if the lawyer is aware of an ethical violation, had a chance to avoid or mitigate the ethical lapse, but did nothing.

For example, if a paralegal is disclosing confidential client information without the client’s consent (a clear ethical breach, see Rule 1.6) and the paralegal’s supervisor knew about it, but did nothing, the supervising lawyer can be disciplined for the paralegal’s misconduct.

California lawyers, therefore, are obligated to make reasonable efforts to ensure that their law office has measures which assure that nonlawyer conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of lawyers. This directive applies to both nonlawyer employees and independent contractors. Further, under Rule 5.3, any measures ensuring nonlawyer ethics compliance should consider whether the nonlawyers have legal training.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Greg Fayard at [email protected].

Watch for the Sucker Punch… Joint and Several Liability for Professional Negligence?

Posted on: March 20th, 2019

By: Jon Tisdale

Litigants are forever looking for new ways to blame their lawyers when their mediocre case goes south. (As an aside, pay close attention to your intake protocol and “just say no” to those mediocre cases, because when they go bad, so will your relationship with your former client.) So, why is this a special problem for lawyers?

Like most states, California draws a bright line between economic and non-economic damages. In an effort to keep underinsured deadbeats from stiffing tort victims, California has enacted a statute with the stated economic impact being to hold “deep pocket” defendants (yes, the statute actually employs that disgraceful terminology) responsible jointly and severally for economic damages so as to not deprive an innocent victim of recovery of their medical bills, without regard to apportionment of fault. Non-economic damages (for “pain and suffering,” the so-called pot o’ gold at the end of the rainbow) remain collectible only to the extent of an actual apportionment of negligence by the trier of fact. This legislative enactment was, at least in California, aimed at the damages recoverable as a result of countless personal injury actions arising from car accidents. But wait… the statute applies to TORT actions… which means that it also applies, apparently unwittingly, to Professional Negligence actions.

California Jury Instructions (CACI) attempt to clearly define economic versus non-economic damages. Economic damages are verifiable, out-of-pocket monetary losses. Non-economic damages are the pie-in-the-sky general damages for physical pain, mental suffering and emotional distress that lead to the “Stella Award” type of verdicts. But that’s typically not the danger of professional negligence actions. CACI clearly instructs jurors that: “you will be asked on the Verdict Form to state the two categories of damages separately” (which is a legislative proclamation that if a trial judge permits a verdict form that does not require segregation of economic and non-economic damages, it will in fact be reversible error).

Why is this dangerous in professional negligence cases? Because, generally speaking, in cases involving the tort of professional negligence virtually all of the damages are economic! Professional negligence cases have a nominal “emotional distress” element to them, but the meat and potatoes of the tort is WHAT DID YOUR NEGLIGENCE COST ME OUT OF POCKET? It is not so much about how did it make the litigant feel, but how much did it cost them.

Increasingly we see cases in which litigants with less than clearly meritorious cases change lawyers mid-case, sometimes more than once. If it goes south, they are going to sue everyone. This is the danger that you need to be alerted to and cognizant of. You could be defending a lawyer who was just one of several lawyers in the chain of representation and who did seemingly nothing wrong.  But if the economic damages are millions of dollars and your client is found 1% at fault… he/she has joint and several liability for the full amount of the economic damages! More than a little scary…

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Jon Tisdale at [email protected].

Trends in Real Estate Claims

Posted on: March 5th, 2019

By: Peter Catalanotti

In representing real estate brokers through their Errors & Omissions insurance for over a decade, I often get asked what types of claims are trending. What follows is my experience regarding real estate broker claim trends.

Real estate broker claims tend to track the economy.

In increasing and level markets, the claims against real estate brokers often include equitable relief such as specific performance. Often times the plaintiff/buyer will be a plaintiff/attempted buyer. With increasing or level markets, sellers may receive multiple offers. The decision of which offer a seller should take is sometimes a close call. When something goes wrong during the transaction or delays the close of escrow, the seller often prefers to get out of the purchase contract and sell to a backup buyer. Sellers may think that the backup buyer will be less trouble. Occasionally, the seller will offer to repurchase the property.

In decreasing markets and recessions, we see more claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and fraud cases. Sometimes, these cases often involve buyer’s remorse. Plaintiff/buyer then sues for damages. The property they purchased is worth less than they paid for it, so the buyer has an interest in recouping this loss. At least in California, there is almost always a defect in a transaction that an expert can exploit. A buyer who was marginally able to afford a property may be looking for a way out. Buyers behind on mortgage payments may sue the lender, mortgage broker, and real estate broker in an attempt to renegotiate the terms of their mortgage.

One of the reasons that real estate broker claims are hard to track is that the cases that make it to an appellate court or state supreme court were most likely filed years earlier. Therefore, when analyzing a real estate broker claim, it is important to take note of the economy at the time of purchase and the motivations of the plaintiff. Understanding the plaintiff’s motivation can at times help bring the case close to an early resolution.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Peter Catalanotti at [email protected].