Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Legal Malpractice Case. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This seven page paper is based on a fictitious case study provided by the student. An employee is injured while working for employer and hires a lawyer to sue the employer. The employer makes a settlement offer, which the lawyer does not communicate to the employee. Subsequently the employee loses the court case and gains no compensation. This paper considers the situation where the employee is taking action against the lawyer for negligence in failing to communicate the settlement offer. The paper presents advice for the lawyer and for the employee as well as considering the fiduciary relationship. The paper is written with reference to US law. The bibliography cites 7 sources.
Page Count:
7 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEmalpract.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
contingent fee. Longshoreman lost a court case, but subsequently found out stevedoring had offered a settlement of $90,000, an offer which the lawyer had not conveyed to him. This failure
to communicate the offer violates the ethical rules. Longshoreman now wishes to take action against the lawyer to recover the $90,000 he could have received had he settled, which he
may have done had he known of the offer. The lawyer is arguing that in line with Moores v. Greenberg, 834 F.2d 1105 (1st Cir. 1987) any water damages
should be reduced to $60,000 to account for the contingent fee which would have been paid on a settlement. Representing the lawyer If
representing the lawyer the argument should be based on the reasons why the contingent fee should be deducted from any potential settlement. The aim of court action is to compensate
for the loss caused by negligence. The usual approach is to ensure that the client will be placed in the same position that they would have been in at the
negligence not taken place. It is stated in the case of Reynolds v Picciano, 29 AD2d 1012 that the aim is to make the injured client whole and that where
a course of action has created a loss the damages that rewarded should reflect the value of that loss (Mallen and Smith, 2000). For Longshoreman the calculation is simple.
A settlement offered was $90,000, there was an agreement in place for a one third contingent fee, this means that had the offer been accepted by Longshoreman he would have
received a total of $60,000. If the principles of putting the client in the position they would have been but for, then it may be argued, according to the case
...