Legal Malpractice Defense

With the advent of tort reform and the resulting barriers to successful suits against medical professionals and institutions, lawyers and law firms have become more attractive targets for the plaintiffs' bar. Munsch Hardt's Legal Malpractice Defense group has significant experience in defending legal malpractice cases. Many legal malpractice insurance policies provide that, with the carrier's approval, the insured may choose defense counsel. The Munsch Hardt group is often the choice of fellow attorneys who have been sued and the group has achieved success in defending the interests of these professionals. The same team has significant experience representing attorneys and law firms in matters involving withdrawals from and dissolution of law firms.

• Representation of a regional law firm in a legal malpractice case in which the plaintiff alleged that the firm was negligent and had breached its fiduciary duty by failing to include certain provisions in employment contracts between the plaintiff's company and one of its employees. The firm moved for summary judgment on several theories including limitations. In this latter connection, the firm asserted the claims the plaintiff characterized as a breach of fiduciary duty were actually based on alleged negligence, so the two year, rather than the four year, statute of limitations applied. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the firm on all theories asserted in the firm's motion and the plaintiff appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff's claims were based on alleged negligence, regardless of the label placed on them by the plaintiff and were barred by the two year statute of limitations.
• Representation of the plaintiff's expert witness on negligence and proximate cause in a legal malpractice case against an international law firm. We testified the defendant was negligent in failing to request certain jury questions at the trial of the underlying case and that such failure was a proximate cause of damages to the plaintiff. The defendant's expert, a former justice of the Dallas Court of Appeals, testified to the contrary. The jury found the defendant was negligent, its negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages and the plaintiff's damages exceeded $1 million. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed on appeal.