Giving a client years more to sue a law firm for malpractice apparently didn’t sound like such a swell idea to the California Supreme Court.
Not even if that client continues to be represented by one of the firm’s former lawyers.
Giving a client years more to sue a law firm for malpractice apparently didn't sound like such a swell idea to the California Supreme Court. Not even if that client continues to be represented by one of the firm's former lawyers. The idea got a cool reception Wednesday during oral arguments in a case that saw nine major law firms and two large county bar associations filing briefs as amici curiae to oppose the concept. California appellate courts are split on the issue.
September 06, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Giving a client years more to sue a law firm for malpractice apparently didn’t sound like such a swell idea to the California Supreme Court.
Not even if that client continues to be represented by one of the firm’s former lawyers.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS