On Feb. 20, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gunn v. Minton that legal-malpractice cases are best left to state courts rather than federal courts. But what happens when a defendant firm indicates that it would rather stay in federal court? Baker Botts is about to find out.
In 2010, a former client sued Baker Botts in U.S. District Court for the Northern District in Dallas, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Axcess International Inc. alleged in its complaint that Baker Botts failed to inform it that the firm had a conflict: The firm was pursuing a patent for a competitor at the same time it represented Axcess in a patent application for a product in the same industry for the same invention.
